Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BATH CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time tomorrow

BATH SIDE BAY DEVELOPMENT BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

CORNWALL RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

DERBY CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

DEVON RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

ESSEX RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second tune upon Tuesday next.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

MERSEY TUNNEL BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

REIGATE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SALOP COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELNEC (MANCHESTER CENTRAL AREA RAILWAY, ETC.) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

SOLIHULL CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

THAMES BARRIER AND FLOOD PREVENTION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

National Insurance Commissioner (Appeals)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will review the regulations dealing with appeals from local tribunals to the National Insurance Commissioner with a view to allowing an automatic right of appeal in more cases.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I am not clear what cases the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. Existing legislation already provides for an automatic right of appeal from any decision of a local tribunal to the National Insurance Commissioner.

Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport and General Workers Union has recently been in correspondence with the National Insurance Commissioner about certain cases which reflect a sense of injustice on the part of its members, particularly with reference to the holding of oral hearings? Would he look at the correspondence to see whether there is any need to review the arrangements?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Kinnock: After the right hon. Gentleman has looked at the correspondence, will he undertake to have conversations with the Commissioner with a view to having more oral hearings, since there is a widespread feeling among appellants and trade union representatives that their cases are not getting a thorough hearing by having only written appeals?

Sir K. Joseph: I will hear that in mind when I read the correspondence, but I will give no undertakings.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will reconsider the rule by which a recipient of retirement pension or other national insurance benefit forfeits a portion of this benefit after a period in a National Health Service hospital.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. Reductions of benefits after a beneficiary has been receiving free in-patient treatment in a hospital for some time have been a feature of the national insurance scheme since its inception and seem to me to be fully justified.

Mr. Jay: Although up to the present all Governments have maintained this rule, will the right hon. Gentleman seriously reconsider this matter because it is, after all, a contributory pension? Would not recipients of a private pension or a public service pension be indignant if their pension were cut because they were in hospital?

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir, I cannot undertake to do that. It seems to have been generally accepted that public funds should not provide twice for the same contingency; and if a change were made it would, even though marginally, affect the level of contributions, which would have to be charged.

Mrs. Castle: But has not the situation changed radically since the principle was introduced and since it was last reviewed in 1960? Can it be said today that the level of national insurance benefits is so lavish that such deductions are justified? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his advisory committee to have another look at this matter sympathetically, and will he convey to that committee the views of the House?

Sir K. Joseph: I am not sure the right hon. Lady is right, because I believe the National Insurance Advisory Committee has looked at this matter more recently than 1960. The fact remains that people are getting their keep while they are in-patients in hospital, and the adjustment is made sensitively in the light of their continuing commitments at home.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: When we speak of the contributory principle, is it not fair to bear in mind that a person who retires today will probably have paid for about a tenth of the benefits he receives from national insurance?

Sir K. Joseph: That is true, but the bulk of the cost of the retirement pention is borne by contributors, with a large contribution from the taxpayer. One generation subsidises another.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a precise date when he proposes to commence the review of the rates of retirement pensions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to begin the review of retirement pensions.

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he anticipates that the next review of retirement pensions will be started.

Sir K. Joseph: As I have already announced, the next uprating will be in October. The review will be timed accordingly and the details announced in due course.

Mr. Dempsey: But is the Secretary of State aware that recently I bought a pound of boiled gammon which cost 12 shillings, and that, coming to the slices, it worked out at nine old pence per slice? Would the Secretary of State agree that this, together with the soaring prices of other necessities, is beyond the purse of retirement pensioners at present? Would he agree that what is required is a substantial increase in retirement pensions now?

Sir K. Joseph: Despite the price mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, both the general price index and the pensioners' price index show that the pension increase given in September more than restored the purchasing power of the pensioner and added a marginal increase. Therefore the Government have brought great comfort to millions of pensioners in announcing—this was something that the previous Government were unable to do—that we are moving to annual upratings instead of biennial upratings.

Mr. Ewing: Would the Secretary of State accept that the announcement today that pensions are not to be reviewed until October this year will be received with great dismay by the people of this country? Will he ensure that when this review is undertaken, those pensioners who, as a result of the last review. finished up being worse off than they were before the review, will not be the victims of the same policy?

Sir K. Joseph: I rejoice to remind the House that now that we are moving to annual upratings for both retirement pensions and supplementary benefits, there will no longer be any cause for the misunderstandings that have accompanied the biennial review of one and the annual review of the other.

Mr. Ridsdale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking probably one of the greatest steps taken by any pensions Minister in bringing forward an annual review, which has given great satisfaction to many pensioners. Under the annual review, will my right hon. Friend consider the question of concessionary fares for elderly people in rural areas? At present, concessionary fares are being given in urban areas, backed by wealthy councils, whereas in rural areas the local councils cannot afford to back them.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is tireless in his advocacy of benefits for the elderly. Therefore, I take his kind tribute very warmly. I will discuss his suggestion with my right hon. Friend, but I do not consider that upratings and reviews are normally the occasion for such a policy declaration.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government would never have introduced the annual review had it not been for the exceptional situation of the grotesque increase in prices caused by the Government's policy? As a result of that inflationary pressure, has not the whole value of the last increase been whittled away, and does not that mean that any further increase in prices between now and October will result in a systematic and steady reduction in the value of pensions that are already inadequate? Will he not take exceptional measures to deal with this situation?

Sir K. Joseph: The value of pensions always erodes between upratings and did so even when the Labour Government were in office. In fact, the buying power of the pension now, four months after the last unrating, is greater than it was four months after the last Labour up-rating in 1969.
Secondly, the rate of inflation that we expect over the next year, roughly—no one can be absolutely sure—is of about the same order of magnitude as the


Labour Government expected when they statutorily bound themselves to review pensions only every two years.

Constant Attendance Allowance

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further representations he has received regarding the scrutiny of applications for the attendance allowance.

Sir K. Joseph: None, Sir. The hon. Member will be aware, however, that the question whether anyone satisfies the statutory conditions relating to the need for attendance is entirely a matter for the Attendance Allowance Board.

Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a substantial proportion of those whose applications are turned down do not apply for a review? Bearing in mind that a very high proportion of those who apply for a review are ultimately successful, is he satisfied that sufficient is being done to get the people who are at first turned down to apply for a review?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that there is a case for revising the letter of decision to emphasise the right of review. That will be done.

Mr. Waddington: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many advertisements about the scheme tend to raise people's expectations rather high, with consequent disillusionment, if not anger, when their applications are later turned down? Will he, therefore, either tone down the advertisements or broaden the scheme so that those who do not at present qualify will qualify?

Sir K. Joseph: I take seriously the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. But we shall be shown to have proceeded on lines which will have brought the award to well over the number we originally anticipated, and to a handsome proportion of those who have applied.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that tens of thousands of very hard-pressed disabled people have been refused this allowance? Will he reconsider his reply as a matter of urgency and tell us what further consideration his Department has given to a two-tier arrangement? Why should

we have an all-or-nothing payment which means that many severely disabled people are excluded altogether?

Sir K. Joseph: There is a limit to the amount that can be done at one go both financially and, above all, administratively. I have told the House time and again that the Government intend to move forward at the right time, and that time will be as soon as practicable.

Disabled Persons (Vehicles)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now able to make a statement on his investigations into the practicability of producing a three-wheeled vehicle suitable for a disabled person and one passenger.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 30th November.—[Vol. 827, c. 43.]

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was yet another non-reply? He has been talking for some time about a review, for which we are all waiting, of the invalid vehicle scheme. Does he agree that he must first find out whether this kind of vehicle is mechanically possible and how much it would cost before bringing forth the conclusions in his review?

Mr. Alison: No. It would be a mistake to incur costs in designing or investigating a vehicle before the eligibility for it has been determined.

Sir R. Thompson: Has my hon. Friend satisfied himself that one of the mass-produced small cars fitted with automatic gears—for instance, a mini—could not be fairly cheaply adapted to a wide range of disability? It would not only meet the point made by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) but it would be vastly cheaper to service and to provide spares for it.

Mr. Alison: Small cars are already issued by my Department to those who are eligible for them. The question whether there should be wider eligibility is precisely what we are considering.

Supplementary Benefits

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied


that the October increase to people living on supplementary benefits has given them a compensatory increase; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): Yes, Sir. The increase in supplementary benefit rates in September, 1971, more than restored the purchasing power of the previous rates at the time of their introduction in November, 1970.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that if the value of the single person's supplementary allowance is plotted against the average industrial wage, increases granted over the past two years have left the recipients poorer than at any time since supplementary benefits were introduced in 1966? If that is not bad enough, old-age pensioners drawing supplementary benefits have part of their pension increase clawed back by the S.B.C.

Mr. Dean: That particular point will be dealt with completely as a result of the annual review of pensions announced by my right hon. Friend before Chirstmas.
On the first point, the purchasing power of the pension has been more than restored, and for those supplementary pensioners who are over 80 there was an additional benefit over and above the scale rates.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is the Minister aware that those on supplementary benefits and old-age pensions cannot possibly live on the miserable pittance allowed them by the State, because of the abnormal rise in prices fostered by the Government? It is no use whatever waiting until October, when some of them will probably have died from hypothermia. Will he do the decent thing and peg the allowance to the cost of living so that it rises when the cost of living rises?

Mr. Dean: I do not think the hon. Gentleman helps by making these emotive remarks. The increase provided last September more than restored the purchasing power of the pension. None the less, my right hon. Friend is very conscious of the needs of supplementary pensioners, and we are doing our utmost to improve the scheme all the time.

Mr. Boscawen: When will my hon. Friend be able to announce an increase

in the additional coal allowance to the supplementary benefit?

Mr. Dean: A large number of those who are eligible for additional special allowances are now getting them. The scheme has been improved. Each allowance book is being looked at on review to see whether more people might be eligible for these special additions.

Old Persons' Register

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give advice to local authorities on the desirability of compiling a register of old persons living alone.

Mr. Alison: Advice on the value of registers of the elderly and handicapped was given in Departmental circulars 19/71 and 45/71 issued last year, of which I am sending copies to the hon. Member.

Mr. Johnson: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Is he aware that many thousands of old people who are living alone are unaware of the welfare services available to them? Surely a register, which can be compiled properly only by a local authority, is the way to deal with this situation. I am glad that the Minister is thinking along these lines. Will he please follow it up?

Mr. Alison: Yes. We are particularly conscious of the 8,000 severely handicapped elderly people living alone whom we are making a special attempt to identify and locate. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that an effective register has to be continually updated, and not all elderly folk like to be pried upon the whole time.

Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend reconsider introducing free or reduced telephone rentals for old people living alone, because for such people telephones are not a convenience or luxury but a matter of life or death?

Mr. Alison: That is another question, but I certainly note what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the present methods for compiling such registers are satisfactory? In Bradford, an old man aged 79 had


been dead for a week before that was discovered. He was unknown to the welfare department. Although that particular welfare department is most thorough in compiling its register, it admits that there are many such cases unknown to it. How does the Minister hope to cure that situation?

Mr. Alison: I should like details of that case. Registration is not a 100 per cent. foolproof system.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will the Minister bear in mind that several local authorities, including the Bedworth Urban District Council in my constituency, are investigating the possibilities of compiling such registers? Will he tell the House what the circulars said about the need to preserve confidentiality of this information in certain categories?

Mr. Alison: I think that the best course would be for me to send both the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend copies of the circulars.

Benefits (Advice to Claimants)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are taken or contemplated by his Department to ensure that those who are or may be entitled to industrial disablement benefit or special hardship allowance are made aware of their rights.

Mr. Dean: It is standard procedure to include advice in the covering letters sent to claimants with their first and final injury benefit payments about possible title to disablement benefit and where they can obtain further information and claim forms. Further, claim forms for both disablement benefit and special hardship allowance are sent, without request, to a claimant who is still receiving injury benefit 19 weeks after his accident and in certain other cases where injury benefit ceases earlier and there is clear title to disablement benefit.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that certain offices are not restricting their notification of entitlement to disablement benefits to those who have been away from work for at least 20 weeks? Does not he consider that the probability is that a great many more are entitled to disablement benefit and special hardship allowance than are

receiving them, and that this explains why only one-fifth of those who receive industrial injury benefit receive disablement benefit?

Mr. Dean: No, the reason for that is largely that many injuries, fortunately, clear up within a comparatively short time and those concerned are able to return to work. There was a case, about which the hon. Gentleman has corresponded with me, in which I freely admit that our local office did not carry out the full procedures, and I am taking steps to ensure that that does not happen again.

Electricity Boards (Demands for Payment)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue a general direction to electricity boards to make a study of the number of cases of hardship, qualifying for benefit, which can be attributed to the system, whereby they demand quarterly payments, rather than weekly, fortnightly, or monthly payment.

Mr. Dean: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to issue directions to electricity boards. But the Supplementary Benefits Commission maintains close contact with the boards about the problems which sometimes arise in this field and about practicable ways of avoiding hardship.

Mr. Dalyell: It is all very well to talk about the problems sometimes arising, but often the existence of a heavy quarter's bill is a source of debt starting.

Mr. Dean: I realise that this is a problem, and the Supplementary Benefits Commission has been discussing this with the Gas Council and Electricity Council and with representatives from local authorities. I hope it will be possible for an agreed method of avoiding these difficulties to be arrived at soon. It may well be that the fixed sum at monthly intervals arrangement will be the most satisfactory way of dealing with the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the total unsuitability for elderly people of quarterly billing based on internal electricity meters, which was the cause recently of the


suicide of Mrs. Ann Hemmingway of Coventry on receipt of a deliberately inflated electricity bill?

Mr. Dean: Yes, we are very concerned about these matters. That is why the Commission is having discussions with the proper authorities to see whether we can arrive at more satisfactory arrangements.

Mr. Eadie: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong case for re-examination of this position? For example, it is contradicting the Government's policy on the movement of population from older areas into new towns. Why should those who decide to move to new towns be punished and penalised because of these restrictions, put forward by electricity boards or any other boards?

Mr. Dean: I hope that the assurances I have given to the House about the discussions which are taking place are felt to be satisfactory. I must reiterate that my right hon. Friend has no power to dictate to the electricity boards in this matter.

Population

Sir G. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the forecasting of the population of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: The Government rely upon the profesional advice and services of the Government Actuary and the Registrars General in preparing population projections. These are prepared and published annually on the basis of what seems the best single set of assumptions to make about demographic trends.

Sir G. Longden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that it is no reflection on him that I put down this Question several weeks ago to the Prime Minister, who passed it to the Lord President of the Council, who passed it to my right hon. Friend? Does not the prospect of over-population of these islands in the very near future pose a great threat, not only to our environment but also to our very existence? Does not this threat demand the urgent attention of the head of the Government and of the whole Cabinet?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is immensely experienced in the ways of the House, but the way that he framed his Question puts it firmly in my field, as I am responsible for the procedure and calculations that lie behind population predictions. The implications of those are either for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or for my right hon. Friend the Lord President.

Mr. Molloy: To avoid an excessive burden on his Department, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider persuading his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to drop his ridiculous Housing Finance Bill so that the housing position can be tackled in readiness for the increased population?

Sir K. Joseph: If I were to contact my right hon. Friend, it would be to encourage him in his policies.

Mrs. Renée Short: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are very anxious to see a sensible population policy adopted and that we should support him if he were to set up an investigation in his Department about this matter? If he would make representations to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to see that this responsibility was given either to himself or to some other of his right hon. Friends, as a start, and if he were to indicate to the House that he would be prepared to make provision for family planning to be freely available on the National Health Service, would not make that a very valuable start in this direction?

Sir K. Joseph: That is another question, but I am sure that my right hon. Friends will note the views of hon. Members.

Group Practices (Patients' Medical Records)

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that in group practices the confidential nature of the patients' medical records is being respected; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: The preservation of the confidentiality of patients' medical records is a cardinal point of medical ethics and I am sure that, whatever the


form of practice organisation, all general practitioners are fully aware of their responsibilities in this respect.

Dr. Summerskill: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the traditional privacy of the doctor-patient relationship must be preserved in the increasing number of group practices which are now being built up in which large teams of staff have access to medical record cards, and will he take steps to safeguard the privacy of the patient?

Sir Joseph: I certainly agree on the importance of confidentiality, but I am sure that the medical profession and general practitioners are fully alive to its importance and will take the essential steps to maintain the confidentiality of their records.

Polluted Soil

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will hold an inquiry into the effect of polluted soil on the health of those whose homes are built upon it.

Mr. Alison: No, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the researches of a Dr. Pinsent of the Royal College of General Practitioners, there appears to be no information available about the long-term effects on life and health of living on toxic soil? In view of the grave public concern about pollution, will he initiate research into this important subject?

Mr. Alison: The hon. and learned Gentlemen I think knows that there is a good deal of current resarch into all aspects of environmental pollution, and we are very closely into touch with the research.

Mr. Tom Boardman: If my hon. Friend should have to consider this matter again, will he distinguish between objections that are put forward on genuine health grounds and objections that are put forward to prevent private housing development either because of party dogma or because it appears to change the party political pattern in a constituency?

Mr. Alison: I note my hon. Friend's Intervention. He will note that my Departmental Medical Adviser's advice

was encouraging from the point of view of housing.

Contraception

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation which will permit partners in a marriage to obtain contraceptive medicines and devices without the written consent of their spouses.

Mr. Alison: No, Sir.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are several general practitioners who, if they proffer contraceptive assistance, take the risk of being prosecuted for conspiracy? Will he not reconsider his answer in an attempt to emancipate doctors and wives from this insidious limitation of their freedom?

Mr. Alison: Strictly speaking, these are ethical matters between general practitioners and their patients, and there is no statutory provision requiring consent.

Coal Miners' Dispute (Payments)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total cost to date to public funds of supplementary benefit paid to those involved in the miners' strike, and their dependants, respectively; and what estimate he has made of the extent to which this outlay would have been increased in the absence of the provisions of the Social Security Act, 1971.

Mr. Dean: From the beginning of the strike until 25th January, £3,070 was paid for strikers and £1,018,888 for dependants. Since income tax refunds and strike pay are not generally available in this strike, the provisions of the Social Security Act relating to these payments will not have a great deal of effect. In Scotland, however, where income tax refunds are being paid, the average payment has been £5·90 whereas in England where tax refunds are not generally available the average payment is £7·18.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Since the one certain consequence of the strike will be additional pit closures and redundancies concentrated in areas of high unemployment such as Scotland and the north of England, is it justifiable that tax payers should be obliged, at the rate of


about £1 million a week, to subsidise the creation of additional unemployment? Will my hon. Friend look again at the workings of the 1971 Act and consider the case for returning to the Labour Government's 1948 Act and the provision for the establishment of need?

Mr. Dean: We intend to keep the working of the 1971 Act under close review, but I must remind my hon. Friend that, because in most cases there is no strike pay or tax refund, the main part of the Act does not apply. The part which will apply in a few months' time, namely, no payment after people have gone back to work, is also not relevant to the figures I have given because the men are still on strike.

Mr. Ashton: Will the hon. Gentleman enlarge on the position of single miners who are on strike, particularly those whose parents are retired and who are receiving no income although they have previously paid a substantial proportion of their wages in tax? Will he give an assurance that single miners who are suffering genuine hardship will receive assistance and not be told to become strike breakers and go back to work?

Mr. Dean: The law for many years now, administered by Governments of all political colours, has been that money should not be available to single men who are on strike unless hardship is proved. Where hardship is proved, money is available, and I quoted a figure of over £3,000 which has already been paid during this strike under that category.

Mr. Hiley: Will my hon. Friend consider the means by which this money can be repaid after the strike is over?

Mr. Dean: The 1971 Act has considerably tightened the conditions on which money can be made available. Before any further review, I think we should wait a little longer to see how the Act works.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there has never been a miners' strike which has had such public support as this one has and that he must turn a deaf ear to his hon. and right hon. Friends who would like to repeat the experience of 1926? The

miners will not go back until they get justice, and it is up to the hon. Gentleman to see that they get as generous treatment as anyone else from the Supplementary Benefits Commmission.

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman will not draw me into discussing the merits of the strike. The job of my Department is to administer the law, and I am sure the whole House will agree that the officers of my Department have been doing a very effective job under difficult circumstances in administering the law and giving the due assistance to the wives and children of strikers.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that other sections of his Department are not being mobilised to help strike breaking? Is he aware that local medical committees have been informed by his Department that regional medical officers are to speed up the scrutiny of claims for sickness benefit from miners as a group, and that they will call miner's for medical examination without waiting for a report from the miner's own doctor? Is not this an intolerable interference in the clinical judgment of doctors and the rights of miners under the health service in support of a policy designed to break the strike?

Mr. Dean: That is an entirely different question. I will of course consider what the right hon. Lady said, but I hope that she will agree that the special arrangements we have made to administer the law and to see that strikers' families receive their due benefit under the law are deserving of tribute to the officers concerned.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. In view of the terms of my hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

Dental Services

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to arrange for the provision of facilities for emergency dental treatment over holiday periods.

Mr. Edward Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to provide funds for the operation of an emergency dental service in Bradford.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir: I know of no evidence that demand for emergency dental treatment at week-ends and public holidays is sufficient to justify the cost of maintaining a standby service.

Mr. Dormand: That is a disappointing reply. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is illogical that doctors, chemists and others are required to operate an emergency service but that dentists are not? Is he aware that dentists are willing to undertake such a service provided they receive financial assistance from the National Health Service?

Sir K. Joseph: I have no evidence that there is an acute need, particularly since I understand that most dentists are willing to give emergency treatment, if approached, at their homes.

Mr. Lyons: Is the Minister aware that that is not the case in Bradford, that there have been complaints of an inability to obtain treatment over holiday periods, and that dentists in Bradford are willing to work such a service, for which premises are available? In those circumstances, and in view of the small amount of money involved, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Sir K. Joseph: I am aware that proposals for a standby service in Bradford foundered on a question of finance, but I am not satisfied that the need for such a service in Bradford is great enough to justify public expenditure. However, if the hon. Gentleman cares to send me details I will study them.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the Minister bear in mind the serious situation caused not only by a shortage of dentists throughout the country but by the increasing number who are opting out of the National Health Service? Will he take urgent steps to discover why they are opting out and to remedy the situation?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. I am studying the allegations about deficiencies in the service in certain areas. But I must emphasise that over the bulk of the country it is providing more treatment than ever for the public. If the hon. Lady has any particular point in mind, perhaps she will send the information to me.

Homeless Persons

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to amend the definition of homelessness in the National Assistance Act, 1948.

Mr. Dean: We have no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Davis: That answer is profoundly unsatisfactory. The present definition of "homelessness" is totally inadequate, and results in a good deal of hardship. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain local authorities are not implementing even the present definition? For example, the London Borough of Richmond is refusing to supply Part III accommodation to evicted people, on the ground that their predicament could have been foreseen. Will the hon. Gentleman take action on that?

Mr. Dean: If the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the single homeless, it would be premature to redefine the term, because working parties are now considering the Greve Report and the Glastonbury Report. If the hon. Gentleman is speaking about homeless people with children, I can tell him that the working party set up to consider the Greve Report has reported to the Government, who have accepted its report. We now await a report from the London Boroughs Association on the implementation of the working party's recommendations. Therefore it can be seen that we have taken action already in this respect.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how the number of homeless families in temporary accommodation in London compares with the numbers in the rest of England and Wales.

Mr. Dean: At 30th September last there were 3,182 families in temporary accommodation in Greater London and 2,351 in the rest of England and Wales.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the serious problem in London shown by those figures, what action is the hon. Gentleman taking to enable London local authorities to deal with it more effectively, recognising, as I am sure he will, that if the homeless are to be housed, they will be


housed by local authorities, not by Shelter or any similar organisation?

Mr. Dean: One of the main recommendations of the working party we set up following the Greve Report is that the problem should be the responsibility of the housing authorities. As I said in reply to an earlier Question, the Government have accepted the working party's report. We now await a report from the London Boroughs Association on the implementation of the recommendations.

Poverty

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress of his policies for the reduction of poverty.

Sir K. Joseph: Retirement pensions and related benefits were substantially increased in September, without any increase in national insurance contributions by the low paid, and we have introduced the Family Income Supplement, selective improvements for the chronic sick and the over-80s, the attendance allowance and pensions for younger widows. The Family Income Supplement will go up in April, and we are now committed to review pensions and benefits every year, beginning next October.

Mr. Meacher: Despite that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that almost none of the families in receipt of family income supplement has even been brought up to the poverty line, and that amongst all the other poverty groups, entirely contrary to the Prime Minister's election commitments, there are now more than 250,000 more people in poverty than at the election? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about the scandal of this rapidly deteriorating position?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish when he says that 250,000 more people are in poverty. What has happened is that there are more elderly people and more unemployed than there were 18 months ago, and for these reasons more people are receiving supplementary benefit. But the last Government did not regard, nor do the present Government regard, those on supplementary benefit as falling in the category of family poverty, which both parties have undertaken to tackle. Judged by that standard,

the number living below the supplementary benefit level is now less than it was.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to organise an exhibition to celebrate British entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Prime Minister if he will announce a day's national holiday to celebrate the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Her Majesty's Government are considering ways in which our entry into the European Communities might be celebrated. It is too early for me to be specific about the form the celebrations might take: but I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for their suggestions.

Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an exhibition would be by far the best way of arousing the interest and enthusiasm of the man in the street for the great opportunities that will open to this country when we join the Common Market? In choosing a site, will my right hon. Friend consider a place that really needs cheering up, like North Battersea or South-West Wolverhampton?

The Prime Minister: There have been a number of proposals for such an exhibition to be held so that Britain should be able to demonstrate the products of British industry in the most effective way to our European colleagues, and those proposals are being examined by the Government.

Mr. Watkins: In view of the nature of the terms to which the right hon. Gentleman has appended his signature, might not it be more appropriate to consider a day of national mourning?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman seems to be capable of contradicting himself between the time he put down his Question and the time he asked his supplementary question. If he wants a day of national mourning, why he put


down a Question asking for a national holiday is difficult to understand. When we enter the Community the great majority of people in this country will certainly want to show what Britain can do in the best possible way.

Mr. Onslow: If such an exhibition is held, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it contains a copy of the Labour Government's White Paper of May, 1967, even if it is not possible to obtain and put on display the actual coat that the Leader of the Opposition has since turned?

The Prime Minister: The contents of that White Paper and its support for entry into the Community are well known. It is in many ways an historic document.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman point to any section of that White Paper or any statement subsequently made in which we said that if suitable terms were obtained Parliament would have no ability whatsoever to change legislation enacted in this Parliament except by order of the Community?

The Prime Minister: The constitutional innovation would lie in the acceptance in advance as part of the law of the United Kingdom of provisions to be made in the future by instruments issued by the Community institutions—a situation for which there is no precedent in this country.
Those are not my words. They are the words of the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications of membership, all of which the right hon. Gentleman accepted.

Mr. Harold Wilson: And the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that we said that this had to be done by full legislation of this House, where any legislation on the Statute Book which has been subject to legislative procedure, should be subject to legislative procedure now. The right hon. Gentleman, who pledged himself not to sign the agreement without the wholehearted consent of the British people, must now at least allow Parliament to have its way.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged his retreat from responsibility once again.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (INDUSTRIAL POTENTIAL)

Q.2. Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry on the realisation of Scotland's industrial potential; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The two Departments already work closely together to promote industrial development and economic growth in Scotland.

Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that it would be churlish not to acknowledge the significance of yesterday's announcement about the ore terminal at Hunterston? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that if this investment is to make the maximum contribution to the Scottish economy, the Government must take a political decision to go ahead with a new steel works at Hunterston and to implement the Ocean-span idea? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that both these developments are still on the cards for Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said in his introductory words. He will recall that he asked me the other week to indicate that one of the three developments which he mentioned would go ahead. Yesterday, the British Steel Corporation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were able to make an announcement about Hunterston. This is of enormous importance for Scotland. When the Scottish Council saw me, its representatives said that one of the things that they believed would give most confidence to Scotland was an announcement of this kind. I hope that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, and the Scottish Council, will be able to use this to the best advantage to Scotland.
As for the hon. Gentleman's other two points, I can give him an assurance that both these matters are under consideration. However, the question of a steel works is not a political decision for the Government. We are waiting for the B.S.C. to make its final decision about the future demand that it will have to meet and the nature of the plant in which it wishes to invest.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Q.3. Miss Lestor: asked the Prime Minister whether he will visit Southern Rhodesia while the Pearce Commission is there.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit Rhodesia.

Miss Lestor: Despite the fact that I might have difficulty in accompanying the right hon. Gentleman to Southern Rhodesia, will he reconsider that reply? Does not he consider it important that, before the Pearce Commission returns to this country, he should discuss with it the possibility of leaving behind machinery to safeguard the lives and liberty of those people who have publicly identified themselves with opposing the Smith regime and the proposed settlement?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is necessary for me to make a visit to Rhodesia to discuss a matter of that kind with the Pearce Commission. Lord Pearce has made a statement about immunity, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, as the hon. Lady knows, is in contact with Lord Pearce over this matter.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the Prime Minister take comfort from the fact that he would probably pass Mr. Smith's test of acceptability for Members of Parliament? If the right hon. Gentleman does not feel that he can give moral support to Lord Pearce in this way, since it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the test of acceptability shall be carried out while sanctions are still being applied, they having been approved by this House without a Division, may we at least take it that, in support of Lord Pearce, the right hon. Gentleman has made the strongest possible representations to the American Government about the decision of President Nixon to lift the sanctions on chrome imports from Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's first question, Lord Pearce and his Commission have the full confidence of Her Majesty's Government. On the right hon. Gentleman's second question concerning chrome imports, this, of course, is a matter for the American Administration on which they must

answer for themselves to the United Nations, which is responsible for sanctions.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH COUNCIL (DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRY)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the meeting he had with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) on Thursday 13th January.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 20th January to a Question from the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie).—[Vol. 829, c. 250.]

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister recognise that I heard and read the reply to which he has just referred? Will he recognise also that we appreciate the announcement yesterday about the iron ore terminal? However, will he consider what Lord Melchett said about the terminal being a necessity for the continuation of the existing steel industry in Scotland and that that in itself is not a solution to the Scottish problem? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to his meeting with the Scottish Council, at which its representative put forward certain proposals. Will he make a categorical statement on those proposals and tell us, either now or in the forthcoming Budget Statement, that the Government have changed their policy on investment grants?

The Prime Minister: I told the Scottish Council that each of its points would be examined. The deep water terminal at Hunterston was one of them, and an announcement has been made. In the future, it has great importance as a deep water port, and not only as an ore terminal.

Mr. Dalyell: Do the urban conservation schemes which have been put to the Prime Minister and the employment that they would provide have his support?

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in urban conservation, especially in terms of


historic buildings, and I believe that he is to meet my hon. Friend to have further discussions about this matter. I do not under-estimate the importance of this in its own right, quite apart from providing employment. However, the housing improvement grant arrangements provide much more employment in the construction industry, and certainly advantage is being taken of them.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Prime Minister now take the opportunity to pay tribute also to the workers of the Upper Clyde and Plessey who, despite the actions of his Government, have preserved jobs and industry in Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman also make it clear that if any offer is made for the fourth yard on Clydeside, finance will come from his Government over and above the Local Employments Acts finance?

The Prime Minister: I said when I met the shop stewards, in the early stages of the U.C.S. problem, that the Government were determined to provide employment on the Upper Clyde in a viable shipbuilding industry. They have known that all along. From the point of view of future industry in Scotland, I am sure that the best results could be achieved by co-operation between unions and employers.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of further rises in unemployment, he remains satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments on economic problems; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There is already close co-ordination between all Departments concerned with economic policy in its various aspects. In my speech in the House on 24th January I set out the reasons underlying the growth in unemployment over recent years; and outlined the range of measures taken by the Government, including an unprecedentedly powerful stimulus to demand, aimed at bringing down the level of unemployment.—[Vol. 829, c. 1024–42.]

Mr. Sheldon: We have heard a great deal about the powerful stimulus created by the £1,400 million. However, despite the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of his Budget State-

ment summarising the purpose of the spending of this £1,400 million as being for incentives—the words he used were "creating the spirit of endeavour "—is not the real cause of unemployment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spent this money wrongly for political reasons and so failed to bring about an increase in demand which would have led to investment and a reduction in the number of unemployed?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can argue that the additional expenditure on infrastructure and increased investment in the nationalised industries and bringing investment of that kind forward, is mistaken policy or that the policy is limited solely to a reduction in taxation. The encouragement of investment both in infrastructure and in the nationalised industries, as well as in the naval shipbuilding programme, deny the hon. Gentleman's thesis.

Mr. Bidwell: We all know how distressed any Prime Minister must be with the present level of unemployment. Can he tell us by how much it should be reduced this year?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not customary to make forecasts of the movement of unemployment. At the same time, we all agree that unemployment is much too high, and the measures which are being taken are, of course, taken with the intention of reducing it.

Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister read this morning's report by the Industrial Policy Group? Is he aware that that body's view of investment conflicts directly with the view of his Government? Will he tell us who is wrong—his Ministers here or his mates outside?

The Prime Minister: There are sometimes differences in estimates of what is likely to happen about the future of investment. Every Government have to make the best judgment they can. We have been trying to increase public investment at the moment, when the capacity exists, but at the same time to see that the economy does not become overloaded when there is a subsequent increase in private investment.

UNPARLIAMENTARY CONDUCT

Mr. Speaker: I want to make a short statement to the House.
I have considered what happened yesterday. When strong feelings exist or are aroused there are times when the Chair can appropriately be deaf or indeed blind. In my view I went to the absolute limits of tolerance yesterday, perhaps beyond them. What I now want to make clear is that if an hon. Member uses unparliamentary language or acts in an unparliamentary manner and when ordered to refuses to withdraw or desist, I will not hesitate to act in accordance with the Standing Orders.
The reputation of the House and the position of the Chair are now at risk. That is something which I, so long as I am Speaker, cannot tolerate.

Later—

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the event which occurred following Question Time yesterday. Are you aware, Sir, that the hon. Lady concerned is reported to have said that she made no apology for her action but that, on the contrary, she proposed to repeat the action.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he is commenting on the conduct of another Member, it must be by substantive Motion.

Mr. Paget: With respect, Mr. Speaker, whether this be a question of order or privilege—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down. You are stirring the pot"] That is precisely what I am doing. Whether this be a question of order or privilege, Mr. Speaker, comment on the conduct of another Member with regard to the order of this House is a matter to be made to you, Sir. This lady is reported as having said she did not apologise for her conduct, but proposed to repeat it. In those circumstances are we to tolerate this, and indeed are we to submit to this kind of violence by giving her priority of audience?

Mr. Speaker: So far as the future is concerned, the hon. and learned Member must be content with the statement I have made.

Mr. Biffen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to prolong this

matter, but the statement which was made obviously will be written into the precedents of this House, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said that he hoped that you would add a footnote to Erskine May. May I point out that when a somewhat similar incident to yesterday's took place in May, 1938, Mr. Speaker Fitzroy on that occasion turned a blind eye and said he took into account the fact that Mr. Shinwell, as he then was, had apologised. I was wondering whether any indication had been given to you, Sir, of an apology by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin).

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue further the statement I made.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully ask you to acquaint the House whether, in view of the mandatory terms in which Standing Order No. 23 is cast, there is any precedent for not putting them into operation where no apology has been vouchsafed?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I must regard that as a comment on the conduct of the Chair. The way to deal with the matter is by Motion.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Though some of us in the past have incurred the displeasure of your predecessors—and I am by no means innocent in this regard—nevertheless, yesterday's performance was something which, had it been perpetrated outside the House, would have fully justified the police apprehending the offender. In this instance I know that you, Sir, have exercised a tolerance which has won the respect of us all, but may I say that we all have very much in mind the traditions of this House to ensure that there is freedom of debate, and we rely greatly on you to uphold that freedom. A procedure such as occurred yesterday inevitably will make grave inroads into that great tradition.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said. I have indicated the attitude I shall take in future. I hope in that I will have the support of the whole House.

NORTHERN IRELAND (TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the inquiry to be held


into the events on Sunday, 30th January which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day.
The Government have decided that this inquiry should be a tribunal established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. The necessary resolution was tabled last night, and the House will be asked to approve it this evening, after the conclusion of the debate on Northern Ireland.
In order to ensure that the powers vested in the Tribunal extend to transferred matters under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as well as to matters reserved to Westminster, the Northern Ireland Government will table a similar resolution in the Northern Ireland Parliament.
The House will be glad to know that the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Widgery, has consented to undertake the inquiry. He will sit alone.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I and I am sure other hon. Members would wish to reserve any comment about the circumstances which have led to the establishment of this inquiry until the debate later this afternoon. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are glad that he has moved with speed to bring this Motion before the House?
Speaking for myself, and I think many of my hon. Friends, I welcome the fact that the Lord Chief Justice has consented to undertake the inquiry. Is the right hon. Gentleman wise to suggest that Lord Widgery should sit alone? We have had a lot of difficulties about one-man inquiries under both Governments. Would it not be better for the inquiry to be more representative? Is he aware that in the Scarman inquiry there have so far been 180 volumes of evidence on what are, I agree, rather wider terms of reference? Would it not be of help to Lord Widgery to have colleagues to help him sift this evidence and assist in giving the necessary authority that a three-man inquiry—or more—would have as compared with a one-man inquiry?
When the right hon. Gentleman has had time to consider this—I do not press for an answer now—will he consider

whether—and I know that this would be wholly exceptional with a tribunal of inquiry—he should consult with other parties in the House about the other personnel for the inquiry, because it is essential, not so much in this House as in Northern Ireland, for there to be the fullest confidence in this inquiry? Will he undertake, on receipt of the report of the inquiry, to publish it as quickly as possible? Will the Prime Minister say whether he has yet received the Scarman report—I understand that he has not. Will he say when he expects to receive it as the inquiry has been sitting since autumn, 1969.

The Prime Minister: We have not yet received the Scarman report. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right about the length of time it has taken in its proceedings. We hope to receive it soon, but I am afraid I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a date. On the question of the Lord Chief Justice sitting alone, this is a matter to which we have given careful consideration. It is a matter which naturally I felt it necessary to discuss with the Lord Chief Justice. We came to the conclusion in the circumstances of this inquiry that the Lord Chief Justice should sit alone. There are precedents under the 1921 Act for the tribunal to consist of only one person, precedents including an occasion in 1943 when the then Lord Chief Justice sat alone. We gave the matter careful consideration and we took into account the various views expressed in the House yesterday, and which have been expressed to me by public personalities, on the nature of this inquiry. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us oppose the setting up of another tribunal, whose findings have been rejected in advance by the Republicans, as detrimental to military morale when yet another illegal march is threatened next Sunday at Newry? Is he not also aware that the Derry affair is all in the urban guerrilla manual—from street marches, snipers, to lying reports, leading to demoralising explanations by the authorities?

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to comment on the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question since I have announced the setting up of the


tribunal providing that the House accepts the Motion. As to the need for it, obviously whenever a Government consider setting up a tribunal they have to examine carefully the various factors to be taken into account. Her Majesty's Government have done this. I recognise that some have said—I hope in the heat of the moment—that they would not be prepared to accept the findings of the tribunal or to appear before it. On the other hand, I believe there are many people who may wish to give evidence to this inquiry. On the advice I have there is no indication that this is likely to undermine the position of Her Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that this tribunal will be warmly welcomed? May we take it that this represents the overt expression of concern of Her Majesty's Government which perhaps in the heat of the moment was not as manifest as some of us would have wished yesterday? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] May I ask one question? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on both personal and legal grounds no one could have a higher regard for the Lord Chief Justice than I have? Is he further aware that his appointment will guarantee a full, impartial, judicial inquiry? But would he accept that it is important that the inquiry should have the most widespread political acceptance before starting its work? Would he therefore, in fairness to the Lord Chief Justice and arising out of the question of the Leader of the Opposition, reconsider the question of appointing two assessors drawn from this country, from Europe or the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: These are views which the right hon. Gentleman expressed yesterday and which we took into account in considering this matter. As for the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in opening his statement yesterday, expressed the natural anxiety which the Government had. The loss of a single life in Northern Ireland, whether civilian or military, must surely be of the utmost concern to everyone.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does it follow from my right hon. Friend's earlier answer that the Lord Chief Justice could

have had the assistance of two assessors, as is more often done, had he in the circumstances of the case thought it necessary or desirable? Dealing with the mechanics of the inquiry, can the Prime Minister give the terms of reference of the tribunal and, for the guidance of the media, is he able to say whether the position over contempt will be in the words of the statute or in the modification recommended by the Salmon Committee?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of my right hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question is that if the Lord Chief Justice asks for facilities of any kind for the carrying out of his task, Her Majesty's Government will do their utmost to meet them.
The terms of reference are as set out on the Order Paper:
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday, 30th January which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day.
To answer the second part, the question of contempt, my right hon. and learned Friend will know full well the view of the inter-departmental committee under Lord Justice Salmon; that the law of contempt applies to tribunals of inquiry from the date when a tribunal is appointed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will, therefore, make a formal announcement, if the House proceeds to pass the Motion tonight, that the tribunal has been appointed, and from then the law of contempt will run.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, arising out of the supplementary question asked by the Leader of the Liberal Party, that concern expressed for those who are attacking our troops may be most Christian, but is hardly encouraging to our troops?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree—and certainly to my knowledge this is the view of the troops—that they are just as much concerned with the loss of life as is any hon. Member in this House.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say where the tribunal is likely to sit? Is he aware


that, according to the most recent reports, Londonderry is in the grip of the most appalling I.R.A. intimidation, even to the extent that old age pensioners are unable to collect their pensions from sub-offices because the postal services are on strike as a result of intimidation? Does he think it desirable for it to sit in Londonderry?

The Prime Minister: This must be a matter for the Lord Chief Justice himself to decide. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to but one of the many difficulties which will be encountered by the Lord Chief Justice in the course of carrying out his task. I wish to pay tribute to him for the public spirit which he is showing in undertaking this task.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Having regard to our request that it should be a public inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be for the Lord Chief Justice to decide how much of it is held in public and how much in private?
The right hon. Gentleman quoted a precedent of 1943, which, though I may be wrong, was probably the inquiry into the ships that escaped through the Channel and thus involved enormous questions of military security.
Has he decided that it should be Lord Widgery sitting alone, on the ground that, being a Privy Councillor, he can be given Privy Council-type information from the troops? If so, will he consider providing other Privy Councillors to sit on the tribunal?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what is intended for the legal servicing of the tribunal? Is a Law Officer of the Crown to be made available, as has been the case on some occasions in the past, although we know that the Salmon Inquiry recommended that the amicus curiae should be someone other than the Attorney-General? May we have an assurance that it will not be a Law Officer from Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct when referring to the question of the tribunal sitting in public or in private, and this is stipulated under the 1921 Act. I think it should be in public unless the tribunal itself decides, for reasons specified under the Act, that it should hear part of the

proceedings in private, but that is a matter for the tribunal to decide.
The particular case in 1943—it was not the one the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—is set out in Appendix C to the Salmon Report. There have been four or five cases under the Tribunals Act of one member comprising the tribunal. It was not because a Privy Councillor was required that it was decided that the Lord Chief Justice should sit alone. It is open to the tribunal under the Act to take whatever measures it believes to be necessary to meet security considerations.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that although the Salmon Commission came to the conclusion that, on the whole, the Attorney-General should not take part in such tribunals, the last two have asked the Attorney-General to do so. It is, therefore, a matter for the Lord Chief Justice himself to decide.

Sir G. Longden: Further to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), would my right hon. Friend agree that if the British Army cared as little for its victims as the I.R.A. cares about its, the casualties last Sunday would have been much heavier and would be daily occurrences?

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to comment now on the events of last Sunday.

Mr. C. Pannell: With great respect to the Prime Minister, may I ask him to think again on this issue? One can think of the precedent of the Denning Inquiry into the Profumo affair. That seemed all right at the time, but on consideration—bearing in mind the eminence of Lord Denning, which was probably comparable with that of the Lord Chief Justice—in the light of history, that does not seem to have been satisfactory. One is also concerned not only about the reputation of the Lord Chief Justice but about the political acceptance of this report at the end of the day. May I express my misgivings on this score and hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again?

The Prime Minister: Criticisms have of course, been expressed since the Denning Report. Those criticisms were not over the fact that Lord Chief Justice


Denning carried out the inquiry as a one-man inquiry but because it was carried out privately and in confidence, without necessarily being under oath.
In this case we have an entirely different situation. The Lord Chief Justice will have all the powers granted to him under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to secure political acceptance elsewhere, that is, of course, an important factor, but those who have said that they will not accept the tribunal have said that they will not accept any tribunal set up by the United Kingdom Government or Parliament, and that is quite separate from the particular question he raised.

Captain Orr: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the existence of the tribunal will in no way mean an alteration in the orders or directives to the troops in the meantime and that the security forces will in no way be inhibited in carrying out their duty to maintain law and order, particularly in my constituency next weekend?

The Prime Minister: The security forces are under very strict orders. It is, of course, the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and of the Secretary of State for Defence in particular, to see that those orders are appropriate and are carried out. That will remain the situation.

Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had the approval of the Northern Ireland Government for setting up this tribunal. Has he consulted any of the minority opinion in Northern Ireland or the leaders of that minority opinion, and particularly the people of Derry? Will he take into account the strong reservations that have been expressed? Will he supplement the tribunal's personnel with an international jurist or judge—[Interruption.]—which would make its findings—this is particularly important in the context of this inquiry—more acceptable to those who lost sons and husbands in the murders of last Sunday?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not say that the Northern Ireland Government had been consulted in the matter.
This is a decision of the United Kingdom Government at Westminster. I said that in order that all legal powers should be available to the tribunal, a similar Motion would be placed before the Northern Ireland Parliament by their Government. It will be moved tomorrow, Wednesday.
The answer to the second part of his question is that under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act the presumption is that the tribunal will hear its evidence in public, so that people will be able to judge for themselves, except where the tribunal decides, for specific reasons, to hear it in private.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Bearing in mind the appalling burden which our troops have been bearing throughout these operations in Northern Ireland, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that if, when people appear before the tribunal they are allowed to have legal representation and advice, we may rest assured that any British troops who are called before the tribunal will be given equal rights?

The Prime Minister: The question of legal representation is a matter to be decided by the tribunal. This has always been the case in the past and it will certainly apply to the Lord Chief Justice's tribunal. It will be for him to decide, and if Her Majesty's Forces ask for appropriate legal representation and the request is granted by the tribunal. Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to provide it.

Mr. Orme: Following the other questions about independent assessors, surely this is most important, because it looks at the moment as if the minority may not participate, which would be a disaster under these circumstances. How long will this inquiry take? Scarman was set up in 1969 and has not yet reported. It has been overtaken by events. Could not the Prime Minister consider a time limit? Will it be possible for people other than citizens of the United Kingdom to appear before this tribunal? I am thinking particularly of international journalists and television people who were present on this occasion.

The Prime Minister: The tribunal will be established, if the House passes the Motion, to inquire into the events on


Sunday, 30th January. It will therefore be for the tribunal to decide whether those who wish to give evidence have evidence to give relevant to the terms of the inquiry. It is entirely open to them to offer evidence, as I hope they will, and for the inquiry to decide whether it is relevant, and then to hear it.
On the first point, naturally the question of assessors was considered at the time and this view was taken into account. The decision was taken, as I have said, that the Lord Chief Justice should sit alone in this case. As for timing, great emphasis was placed on this in the House yesterday, from both sides. The Lord Chief Justice is well aware of this, and the Government have taken steps already—last night—to find accommodation in which the tribunal will be able to sit. I know that the Lord Chief Justice is already considering the procedures under which his tribunal should operate. He will at the earliest opportunity—that will be very early—announce those procedures and discuss them with all concerned.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my right hon. Friend accept that most hon. Members will feel that the Government have acted properly and swiftly in appointing a tribunal of this importance and stature, but since, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, Ireland cannot wait for a tribunal, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not be deterred by the sombre and tragic events of this week-end from pressing ahead in Ireland for a political settlement which is just and fair and which is the only alternative to continued bloodshed?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give that assurance fully.

Mr. Speaker: I will now call on the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement. To relieve the feelings of the House I would point out that the three hours for the Adjournment debate do not begin to run until the debate on the Adjournment begins.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I have published today a document entitled "Training for the Future: A Plan for Discussion". This

sets out the Government's plans for implementing their commitments to expand the facilities for retraining together with the results of my promised review of the work of the industrial training boards.
The Government have decided to introduce a training opportunities scheme which will bring in a massive expansion of Government-sponsored training for individual men and women. In 1970 the number of people receiving training for this kind was fewer than 17,000. "Training for the Future" announces that this will be raised to 100,000 a year as quickly as possible and as a first step to at least 60,000 to 70,000 by 1975. I recognise that to achieve this expansion we shall need determined action to provide the necessary facilities and also to inform people of the new scale of opportunities open to them and of the benefits of taking advantage of them.
"Training for the Future" also reports the conclusions of the review of the work of the industrial training boards. The boards have great achievements to their credit in changing the attitudes of industry to training and in raising the standard of training generally. We need to build on what has been achieved, but we must also recognise and acknowledge the defects in the system and seek to remove them.
For this purpose it is proposed that, while compulsory levy-grant should be phased out after 1973, the industrial training boards should in general be retained in order to concentrate on the development of their work in the identification of particular training needs of their industries, on the setting of standards and on the provision of advisory services. This proposal is in line with the direction already being taken by a number of the boards.
It is further proposed to establish an agency to co-ordinate the work of the boards and to fill the gaps in the present system. This agency would be given funds of the order of £25 million to £40 million a year to provide advisory services and grants in order to stimulate key training to meet national needs—for example, to meet the shortfall in the apprentice intake last summer or to provide any support which might be necessary for activities such as group training


schemes and off-the-job training of apprentices and technicians.
Since it will be necessary to unify responsibility if we are to achieve as quickly as possible the 100,000 target of Government-sponsored training, and since the training plans and programmes of employers and Government also need to be looked at as a whole and to be closely co-ordinated, it seems sensible to make the agency responsible for both sectors. It is therefore proposed to establish a National Training Agency which will be hived off from my Department.
I should like to make clear the status of this document. The expansion of Government-sponsored training which the document announces—that is, the 100,000 target—represents a firm decision with which the Government are proceeding urgently. On the other hand, the proposals relating to the future rôle of the training boards and the establishment of a single National Training Agency are for consultation on the widest basis.
The Government intend to introduce such legislation as may be necessary to implement these proposals in the next Session of Parliament. The document therefore asks all those who wish to comment to do so not later than the end of May so that this timetable can be kept.
We believe that the programme contained in this document will ensure the supply of trained manpower which is vital if this country is to achieve sustained economic growth—growth that is of particular importance in terms both of regional policy and of our forthcoming entry into Europe. Training also has a strong social purpose, for it gives people a chance to improve their economic prospects and to achieve greater satisfaction as they progress through their working lives.

Mr. Prentice: The Secretary of State has announced an expansion of the work of the Government training centres which we would all welcome. Would he confirm that this is likely to have very little impact in 1972 on the present 1 million unemployed? Does it not follow that the Prime Minister grossly oversold this policy last week when he made this announcement one of the main items in his reply to a censure debate on the

problems of having 1 million unemployed?
Even taking the long-term view, would the right hon. Gentleman accept from us that whereas the expansion of training may be a useful part of a strategy for full employment it is no substitute for the rest of the strategy and that if he gets the expansion of Government training by 1975 which he is aiming at the whole thing will go sour and will be worse than useless unless there is an expansion of job opportunities to go along with it?
On the right hon. Gentleman's proposals about the future of the industrial training boards, clearly we shall all want time to study the consultative document. But could I react straight away to what seems to me to be the worst part of these suggestions, that the levy-grant system is to be phased out from 1973? Is it not clear that this has been the mainspring of the expansion and improvement of industrial training in recent years?
If this system is now to be abandoned, will it not immediately make a gift to those firms that do no training? Will not the right hon. Gentleman then take us back to a situation in which it will be cheaper for many firms to avoid their training duty but to try instead, by paying a little over the rates, to poach skilled workers trained by other firms? In other words, is not that suggestion likely more than to cancel out the expansion in the Government training schemes?
It seems to many people that on this point the right hon. Gentleman has yielded to the pressure that he has been under for some time from some of the most reactionary and anti-social employers in the country, who have attacked the whole basis of the work of the hoards and have wanted to avoid doing their share of the training in their own industries.

Mr. Carr: Of course training plans are only part of the strategy for achieving and maintaining full employment in a modern economy, but they are a vital brick in the total structure. If the right hon. Gentleman re-reads the speeches which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I made in last week's debate he will see that the training expansion was presented


as part of a strategy. But we believe that it is an immensely important part. Of course the provision of training facilities does not of itself create new jobs, but it is surprising how, even in a time of very slack labour demand, one can still place people with requisite skills and how even today in some parts of the country—and it is becoming perhaps most obvious in the construction industry—there are shortages of skilled people.

Mr. Carter: Where?

Mr. Carr: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) took any interest in the economy, he would know where the shortages are and would not need to shout from a sedentary position. There are shortages of bricklayers, for example, in many parts of the country. But I want to reply to the questions put by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) instead of sedentary interruptions. These shortages—of bricklayers, for example, and of some other skills—are a sign that if we are not careful shortage of skills could, as has happened before in this country, prove a bottleneck in the economic expansion, and we are determined to try to make sure that no such bottleneck arises. I do not accept that we are exaggerating the importance of training expansion. I believe that we are giving it its appropriate place in our strategy.
I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the industrial training boards and the need to consider their situation. I emphasise that we genuinely want consultation. I would welcome a debate on the subject. I believe that the boards have achieved great success and that in the early stages the levy-grant system was a very valuable and perhaps essential shock treatment to produce the effects that we have seen. But I think there is growing evidence in an increasing number of industries that the effects of the levy-grant system on a compulsory basis are showing rapidly the results of the law of diminishing returns. I think anyone who studies the matter will agree with that. But I repeat that many of the boards have been moving in the direction of my proposals of their own free will and free judgment.
The House should bear in mind that one of the original ideas of the levy-

grant system—to redistribute income from those who were not training to those who were—has been becoming steadily weaker year by year because, for example, not only are an increasing number of small firms being excluded from the scheme because of various difficulties but an increasing number of the boards are setting maxima for the percentage of grants which can be earned, and therefore the degree of redistribution is becoming very small.

Dame Irene Ward: I express our appreciation of the Government's plans for the future of training, which will be very valuable to the economy. In the Northern area we are expecting an immediate expansion of training for the skills that are necessary for the area and we have been led to understand that it is to be put into operation. Is the situation of our training centres being examined in view of the need to establish a quick, special training for the skills needed in the North-East? We want quick action in training now as well as arrangements for the future.

Mr. Carr: I assure my hon. Friend that we are getting on with the expansion following our decision. I am glad to say that the occupancy rate of training centres throughout the country has risen from 80 to about 90 per cent. over the last year There are also bottlenecks in some courses which we are urgently seeking to remove. We are also seeking to supplement facilities available in Government training centres themselves by identifying and bringing into use, on a proper payment basis, spare training facilities which exist in industry. I assure my hon. Friend that action is going on and not just planning.

Mr. Albu: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree from his own experience that before the introduction of the Industrial Training Act the level of industrial training, both in quantity and in quality, was deplorably low in this country by any comparable standards? Does he not feel it extremely dangerous to give up the system of deterrents and incentives involved in grants and levies which has encouraged or forced industries to make the rapid improvement we have seen over the last few years? Shall we not see now a slipping back into the old complacency based on the non-interventionist policies of right hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this is one of the central matters about which we have to form a judgment. Our judgment is that the levy-grant system was a valuable—perhaps indispensable—shock treatment. We believe that, now, however, there is evidence of diminishing returns. We also believe that there really has been a "sea change" and that training has been raised in quantity and quality and also in status to a new level of importance in industry from which it will not slip back.
Moreover, our plans involve a training agency, which never existed before 1964. The agency will be given a sum of £25 million to £40 million; that is the best estimate we can make at the moment. We believe that this is equivalent in total to the net degree of redistribution of resources currently being brought about in the levy-grant system. In other words, we are giving the agency what we believe to be the equivalent amount of resources to stimulate re-training wherever the need appears to arise.

Mr. Emery: Many of us are pleased that the Government training and the industrial training are to be brought together under one agency, a course which has been advocated by many people. First, what is to be done with the specialised knowledge of the Central Training Council, which has given a great deal of assistance overall in training matters? Secondly, what proportion of the £25 million to £40 million does my right hon. Friend envisage being applied to the industrial side rather than to the Government's retraining factor? Thirdly, how will this scheme be particularly beneficial to small companies, which have frequently suffered under the levy-grant system but are very often among those which need the greatest support?

Mr. Carr: The Central Training Council has played a valuable part, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to it. The document suggests that the time has come when the council should perhaps be replaced by an overall employment policy advisory council to advise me not only on training but on all other aspects of employment and manpower policy. This is one of the proposals put up for consultation in the document.
My hon. Friend asks me about the £25 million to £40 million. This is apart

from the cost of running the greatly expanded Government-sponsored scheme. The cost of running the Government-sponsored scheme will probably be about £60 million a year when we reach the 60,000 level and considerably more when we reach the 100,000 level. The £25 million to £40 million is for the agency to use outside the Government-sponsored training scheme.
My hon. Friend also referred to small companies. I hope that the advisory services which the boards will be encouraged to develop will be of great advantage to the small companies in those industries covered by the boards. With the agency, there will in future be an instrument for giving advice where necessary to all those many companies which do not fall under any training board at the moment and which it is almost impossible to envisage as ever coming under any training board in the present system.

Mr. Pardoe: While welcoming this considerable expansion of the Government-sponsored training service, for which we have been pressing for many years, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that there is a desperate need to ensure that jobs are available to those who are trained? Will he also bear in mind the pattern of bad forecasting of labour in the regions and the immobility of labour between the regions. Is he satisfied that his manpower forecasting will be satisfactory to ensure that the training is for jobs which are available and that the jobs are obviously there for those who are trained?

Mr. Carr: The Leader of the Liberal Party raised this question in last week's debate. We have found that manpower forecasting is a very difficult problem and is far, alas, from being solved. We believe that this development of training must run hand-in-hand with development of employment services and the establishment of local labour market areas with sophisticated, adequate staffing for discovering the real state of manpower needs present and future in local areas, and that integrating the local information into a national picture is the most hopeful way of going about this difficult problem. But that we are going to build up urgently in parallel with training development. We cannot see the future manpower needs very clearly at the


moment, and, therefore, there is a great body of guesswork in all the training facilities that one provides, but I hope that as years go on we shall see this more clearly than we do at the moment.

Mr. Scott: Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise at the rather grudging welcome given to these proposals by the Opposition? In view of the fact that the proposals will bring both social and economic benefits to a much larger proportion of the work force, does he not agree—although I welcome the phasing out of the levy—that effective standards will not be possible unless there is some carrot or stick which can be applied by the agency? Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to the success of this whole policy is to making training attractive not simply to the unemployed but also to people who are in employment who could widen their horizons and improve their prospects thereby?

Mr. Carr: As to the question of some carrot or stick, I agree that that is necessary. I believe we have reached the point where a carrot is more effective than a stick. The carrot here is £25 million to £40 million, which is a rough estimate of what the agency will have available for small activities. In addition, the individual boards working under the agency umbrella will, I believe, set a standard at least as good as it has been before.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend that as we expand facilities it will be necessary, as I said in my opening statement, to make an equal effort to inform people about the existence of the extra opportunities and the benefits to be obtained from them. If I may use jargon, there is as much need for a marketing agreement as for a production agreement in this field.

Mr. Mark Hughes: May I ask about the position of residential training schools and colleges, such as Finchale Abbey, and so forth, which at the moment rely very heavily on private capital for giving training opportunities to the disabled, and whether the overlapping between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Department of Health and Social Security will be looked into especially in the expansion—a very sorely needed expansion—of help to the disabled?

Mr. Carr: This is a very important point which is not dealt with in specific terms in this document. I can say that the whole question of the disabled and future policy is under consideration in my Department and there is consultation about this at the moment. I should like to make clear that there is nothing in this document which would in any way make it more difficult for a firm employing disabled persons; on the contrary it will make it easier.

Miss Quennell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone will wish to study the document and to be given an opportunity to welcome these proposals, but is he also aware that in the retraining of mature persons much of his excellent announcement could be undermined unless the social and domestic problems associated with retraining, of married men particularly, are borne in mind and unless his right hon. Friends keep under constant review the grants and allowances available while retraining?

Mr. Carr: Of course this is so. For that reason last July I announced a specific increase in training allowances, which at least makes it financially better for a person or a family to undergo training than to be unemployed.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as has been said by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, this will not solve the immediate problem of long-term unemployment which we have at present? Perhaps I might suggest to him two suitable cases for consideration. Would he suggest to Derek Ezra, who does not seem to understand that the job of the miner is a rotten, lousy job, that he should have six months' training underground? May I also suggest that he might get on a course in which he could find the price of butter? While we are about it, perhaps the Government Front Bench, particularly the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should take a training course on deficit financing of nationalised industries to find ways and means of reconstructing the capital finances of the National Coal Board so that the miners could get a decent increase in response to the claim they have made.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, regarding the programme for the training in Government centres of 100,000, which is to be welcomed, and following what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell), that it is the attitudes of certain people who have skills, and in particular old and obsolete skills, that have to be changed, and I agree with hon. Members opposite that those attitudes cannot be changed quickly? Will he bear this in mind in considering this policy which includes training for definite new employment opportunities which is to be welcomed?
Turning to the consultative document, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of the smaller industries—particularly in building and amongst motor agents—have been overcome by the damp hand of bureaucracy?

Mr. Carr: In so far as there has been "the damp hand of bureaucracy", I think there is no doubt that my proposals will reduce that. This has been one of the real problems, but we are trying to operate a levy-grant system among very large numbers of individual undertakings, and when doing so in an industry where there are large numbers of small undertakings it is virtually impossible to do so except by bureaucratic methods. This is one of the reasons why it has become counter-productive, but I am sure that we shall reduce that so far as it exists.
On the first point, of course I agree. We have a long task ahead of us as a country and we are starting late compared with other countries in developing the concept of training and retraining throughout working life in the sort of skills that we are beginning to talk about. We are informing and persuading people about the benefits of this, which is at least as important as training for industry.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everybody concerned about industrial training will welcome his proposals, which will mean more training and, we hope, more jobs? But would he not agree that he has a further responsibility in the matter of jobs and training, and does he not think it is time that he made a statement at the Dispatch Box on the fact that 280,000 miners are now on strike and that it looks as though many people will freeze because of power

cuts? Although on the one hand he produces a responsible statement such as he has made today, is it not the height of irresponsibility for him not to make such a statement on the miners' strike?

Mr. Carr: At the moment I am making a statement about training and am answering questions thereon, and I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about that. As for the second part of his remarks, if I thought it right today to make a statement about the other subject I would do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very much in the hands of the House. I do not want to close this discussion, but I hope that hon. Members will direct their questions to the statement.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: In the proposed reorganisation, does the Secretary of State expect local education authorities to make a bigger contribution, particularly through institutes of further education?

Mr. Carr: Yes, I think this is very important. One of the most important parts of the consultation that we now have to undertake is with the education authorities because in the last year or two we have been making greater use of vocational training centres and colleges of further education. There has been close co-operation in this matter, and it is important that it should be made closer in the next few months.

Mr. Dalyell: What reputable evidence has the right hon. Gentleman of any diminishing returns? I declare a constituency interest in regard to the multi-occupational training centre in Livingston, where many people are extremely worried about cutting down on the levy system and do not wish the boards to be dependent on Government sources for total finance. Are they to have the same opportunity to protect their interests in the Press as the publicly paid employees of Science have done in defending themselves against the Rothschild proposals?

Mr. Carr: I do not think I can go into the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If he reads the report, which includes as an appendix a fairly detailed assessment of the work of the training boards, I think he will agree


that it would be better to deal with those matters on another occasion. The fact that boards have in recent years, without any pressure from the Government, been finding it necessary to exclude the smaller companies and also have been finding it necessary to limit the percentage of grant—and some boards such as the petroleum training board, the food and drink training board and the iron and steel training board have gone virtually the whole way oil these proposals—is an indication that the proposals are in the same direction as the tide is naturally flowing.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most serious aspects of the unemployment position is the effect on white collar workers? Would he agree that in the context of the whole situation they require special treatment? Is there any possibility of something being done for them in the very near future?

Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the inherent difficulties about the training board system as we know it. There are areas of occupation—and perhaps the white collar workers are such a case—which are spread across the whole area of employment and it does not seem sensible to try to deal with those under 27 different boards. Therefore, I believe that the sort of structure proposed today will give a better opportunity for dealing with the sort of problems my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. McGuire: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I, as a miners' sponsored Member, am delighted that he has got away from the stick and has indicated that he believes in the carrot policy? We shall expect a statement on the miners' dispute in line with that attitude. Could I put a narrow, chauvinistic constituency point: will he in considering the enlarged training programme bear in mind the needs of Skelmersdale? Will he see to it that at the end of the day we shall not train men only to see them become skilled unemployed workers rather than unskilled unemployed workers, and that the jobs will follow the training?

Mr. Carr: Yes, of course. The important point to realise is that this goes back to the beginning. It is a central

part of the strategy, but is no good on its own. I can assure the hon. Member on that matter. I take note of what he said in the first part of his remarks. I only hope everybody will stop using sticks.

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT AND EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Ordered,
That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.;[Mr. John Davies.]

GROUND RENTS (COLLECTION)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the compulsory apportionment of existing ground rent charges, and to make new provision for the collection and payment of such charges.
This will not be a Ten-Minute Rule Bill; it will be a two-minute rule Bill.
The purpose of the proposed Bill is to put an end to an antiquated and complicated system of land tenure, particularly common in Lancashire, by which the owner of the freehold of his house is obliged, without consultation and reward, to collect rent charges from several of his neighbours, submit them to the rent owner, and, if the neighbours do not pay, to make up any deficiency himself. This is not only a tedious burden, but can cause bad feeling among those living near each other in that the person being asked to pay the money may not be responsible. He may be merely a tenant or sub-tenant; the person responsible may, in fact, live in a different part of the country and be unaware of any obligation on his part to pay.
The original rent charges were frequently created in the last century. It is an antiquated and archaic system, and the Law Commission has severely criticised it.
The present method by which a person can get his rent apportioned and get rid of the burden is also costly and time-consuming. Though the Department of the Environment is most helpful, the amount of work involved is out of all proportion to the sum, which is usually about £2 a year.
The Bill seeks to make it the responsibility of the rent owner to collect and


to provide that the landowner should be merely liable to pay his own rent charge. I therefore ask the leave of the House to present the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Kenneth Marks, Mr. Michael Cocks, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Maurice Orbach, Mr. Walder, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Ian Percival, Mr. Dan Jones, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Tom Pendry, and Mr. David Waddington.

GROUND RENTS (COLLECTION)

Bill to provide for the compulsory apportionment of existing ground rent charges, and to make new provision for the collection and payment of such charges, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 16th June and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

NORTHERN IRELAND

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
What is clear from the events in Northern Ireland over the years is that there is no military solution to the problems there. Sunday's events are recent proof, and they are part of a continuing story. Since 1969, 232 people have been killed. In January this year the figure was 26 killed: 18 civilians, 4 police, 3 soldiers and 1 member of the U.D.F. Since internment, 169 people have been killed.
Sunday's events have been traumatic. To some it has been an explosion in a pub; to others a gunman coming in and shooting down a father; and to others it is girls who have been permanently scarred as a result of a bomb in an electricity headquarters. Scars are left on the minds and hearts of Protestants and Catholics. The more Protestants killed by the I.R.A., the more Protestants are determined to remain firm. The more Catholics who are killed by security forces, the more Catholics are determined to get the British out. There is no military solution. There must be a political solution; it will have to be found. That was the view of the Labour Party when in Government. It is still our view today.
Concerning the inquiry which has been announced today, which stems from the events on Sunday. I simply say that the Opposition asked for it before the announcement was made. We hope that all those who are making allegations will attend.
I notice in the Press today that Cardinal Heenan, in a letter to the Prime Minister, said:
The latest reports from Northern Ireland will have shocked all in this country, irrespective of their political or religious views. Without further information, I would not be prepared to judge the degree of responsibility of those involved in yesterday's tragedy. Without further information, it is impossible to know the truth of the allegations against the soldiers or to what extent they were provoked.
If, indeed, several unarmed citizens have been killed by our soldiers, the rôle of the British Army as a peace-keeping force will be suspect. I hope you will order an official


and independent inquiry into this tragedy with the least possible delay.
The Government have done that. It is our hope, and I am sure the hope of the whole House, that all those who have made allegations will offer their evidence in the appropriate place. Even the Financial Times today, which is further evidence that this inquiry is necessary, states that neither official version is true. The only way to clear this up is by an inquiry, and it must be speedy. Unless there is speed attached to it, with due care for the judicial side, it will not remove what we want to remove in Derry.
Another aspect which has arisen as a result of Sunday's events is the banning of marches. This was introduced in the days when the Government were concerned about the Orange marches going through parts of Belfast which were provocative. If this is broken by the Civil Rights Movement, will it be broken by the Orangemen? In particular, we should like the Government clearly to state their views—we are trying to be helpful in this matter—concerning the march which is to take place at Newry on Saturday. Is it the case—this is not an Orange march—that there is selection by the security forces who state that people may march so far, but not beyond? It is important to get this absolutely clear, because this form of political Russian roulette which results from marches is extremely dangerous. I hope that the Government will give their view.
In the Motion I refer to
the need for urgency in Government policy on security decisions and talks leading to a political settlement.
I think that we can take the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in November as the turning point. He then made a series of proposals which, it was agreed on all sides, raised the level of the discussion. It broadened the political horizon. One often finds it being quoted, even by Members on the Government benches.
There is no need to go into all that my right hon. Friend said, but I should mention that, when he said that he sought a political solution not by violence and that the violence should be rooted out before the proposals were put into effect, he did not mean there should not be

discussions straightaway which could be implemented at the right moment.
We accept that a list of proposals is not enough. Policy implementation is for the Government. It is where the politician who has the levers of Government at his control comes in. Only members of the Government can take political initiatives. Of course, all the points of a policy need to be fully orchestrated. It is not just a package deal; it is the way in which the policy is outlined.
It would be a mistake to have policy decisions coming out in dribs and drabs reacting to events. It is important that security should be transferred to West minster. It is important that, from a part of the United Kingdom, there should be this transference to Westminster.
This is not new. My right hon.
Friend, on 25th November, stated:
…I believe that as part of the task of reconciliation, of the removal of bitterness from Northern Ireland politics and institutions, Her Majesty's Government, with their responsibility to this House, should take over Ministerial responsibility for all aspects of security". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th Nov., 1971; Vol. 826, c. 1586–7.]
How is security control exercised now? That is important and relevant in the context of Sunday. As I understand it, from the statement of the Prime Minister in October, there is a Committee chaired by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. The members are the Minister of State and the senior Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, the G.O.C., the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Secretary of the Northern Ireland Cabinet, the Government security adviser and the United Kingdom representative. We are interested to know because it is relevant, despite the inquiry—because it is a policy decision with which we are concerned—as to what happened on Sunday.
Was a decision made at Westminster before Sunday that the troops should go into the Bogside and into the Creggan, where there has been practically no movement by the security forces for some time? In the law and order sense of the term, it has been a no man's land. Was a decision taken to go into an area where Government writ does not run? Was the opportunity taken because of the march, which had arisen obviously for other reasons, to begin moving into the Bogside


to deal with that area in the way that similar areas had already been dealt with in Belfast? This is important and will be important in relation to the events that took place on the day. It is the belief of many in Londonderry that this is so. I have a telegram from a very eminent Catholic who played a major part in the life of the city until internment. The telegram states:
Can assure you Army shooting was planned. Indiscriminate. Designed to teach Bogside a lesson.
It is important that if feelings and beliefs like that are not true, people should be disabused of them.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Did the hon. Gentleman say that that telegram came from a person who is now interned? If so, how did he know?

Mr. Rees: I did not say that. I said that until internment he played a major part in the life of the city.
In the context of security, I ask the Minister to explain to us again the rôle of the Army. I have attempted to put my mind to this matter. I have been on patrol with the paratroopers in Belfast, with three other hon. Members, at night—I am very glad that it was at night. It is a job that I should not want. But the responsibility—not in the technical sense of the term in which I have been asking about security—ultimately is ours. As far as I can see, with limited military knowledge, in the strictly military sense of the term the Army could stay there for years. But in the internal security rôle played by the Army in Ulster—not in a colonial territory where the terrain is different; it is impossible enough there—it seems that we give the Army a task almost impossible to perform.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: You sent them there.

Mr. Rees: I agree that the Government of the day sent them there. I do not seek to play clever stuff on this matter. The Army was sent there by the previous Administration, and all of us have a responsibility in this sense. So we seek information from the Government about the Army's rôle.
I come to policy generally. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the

Opposition made his speech, he made certain proposals that were received well by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Why has there been a delay of nine weeks in the inter-party talks at Westminster?

Captain Orr: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but this is an important point. I am trying to understand the argument about the transfer of security. Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that subject, can he say whether he envisages in that proposition that, for example, control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should now become the responsibility of the Home Secretary rather than a police authority?

Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will deal with that point and develop the point I have already made.
Turning to the talks, why was there a delay of nine weeks, when even in the months before November there was talk and eventually the recall of Parliament. The Home Secretary has made it clear on a number of occasions that all matters can be discussed; the new rôle for the minority, and the economic development, about which not nearly enough has been said. The Prime Minister is reported to have said in Paris that the Northern Ireland troubles would be far, far less if we had gone in to the E.E.C. in 1961. With the Government's enthusiasm for the E.E.C., I am wondering whether any thought has been given to co-operation between Eire and the United Kingdom and the Northern Ireland part of it, especially in the context of regional development. This is most important. All of us could get involved with it.
When we see two countries close together, with the need for regional development on either side, and with an artificial border laid down 50 years ago having an effect on the economy—this is true of Londonderry—at the very least the Governments could get together economically and make an eventual improvement in the relationship between the two sides of the border. I agree that that is a long-term suggestion.
Internment is an important issue. We debated this in November. The Government have said that internment can be part of the discussion. But, in advance of this, the Government should have


responded to all the various ideas that were put forward by lawyers and others for bringing internment, as it is, within the rule of law. Many suggestions were put forward in November. The Northern Ireland Labour Party has put forward its proposals. But unless something is done about the rule of law and internment, it will be impossible for many people in Northern Ireland—and we sometimes forget the emotion on that side of the water—to play a part in any discussions. If the Government have given thought to this, with all the difficulties of internment, it would have been possible, and still is possible, to find a means of dealing with this and of bringing the S.D.L.P. in this instance into the talks.
When talking about Northern Ireland, there is always a tendency for all of us to state the obvious. One such obvious statement is that there is no easy or clear cut logical solution at hand. We are used to compromise in our political relationships. That seems to have gone altogether in Northern Ireland. I do not underrate the difficulties. But given this situation, the Government have been dilatory. We criticise the Government. They have not responded to the gravity of events. Our concern is still for a peaceful settlement. We reject the rule of the gun on either side.
Too often moderate opinion on either side is polarised to a degree that one wonders whether one will ever be able to move it back to moderation. Even in this country among people of all political parties there has been a renewal of the attitude, "Let them get on with it; we have had enough". That is the polarisation on this side of the water that one finds on the other side as well. We criticise the Government's lack of urgency and, in the words of the Motion—
The deteriorating situation …and the need for urgency in Government policy on security decisions and talks leading to a political settlement.
We want to hear this afternoon, not just because of Sunday which, tragic though it is, is one of a series of tragic events, that the Government will take a political initiative.

4.50 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I begin by saying how very much I appreciate the general tone

and manner of the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees).
There has been widespread distress, anxiety and emotion over the events in Londonderry last Sunday. The reports of events conflict wildly. My right hon. Friend explained yesterday that the march had been organised in deliberate defiance of the legal order which banned it. It culminated in an exchange of fire that led to a number of people being killed and injured, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced today the Government's decision to set up a highly authoritative independent inquiry into the circumstances of the march and the casualties which resulted. Our broad purpose is to establish as impartially and as speedily as possible the facts of the situation. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Leeds, South, that we very much hope that all who have made allegations will find it possible to attend and give evidence before this impartial inquiry.
In normal circumstances one could well claim that, since an inquiry is to be set up, it would be better that nothing should be said at this stage which might seem to prejudge what the findings of the inquiry will be. But, as the House knows, there has been a series of reports involving the most serious allegations against the Army's conduct. It is conceivable, although I much hope that it will not prove to be the case, that these allegations will be given further currency during the course of the debate.
I think, therefore, that it is right for me to set out in good faith the facts as I know them, although I realise that the facts as I know them conflict with the statements which have been made by other people. It is right because, however urgently the inquiry is conducted, some time is bound to elapse before the evidence can be collected and weighed. It is not right that the Army's case should go by default when bitter, intemperate and, to the best of my belief, inaccurate or untrue statements have been made against it. It would be grossly unfair to the Forces who are in Northern Ireland. We must also recognise that the I.R.A. is waging a war, not only of bullets and bombs but of words. It is waging a highly skilled war of propaganda, in which


corpses, the unutterable sadness of relatives, the confusion, the gullibility and the downright lies are all brought into play. If the I.R.A. is allowed to win this war I shudder to think what will be the future of the people living in Northern Ireland.
To allow the Army's case to go by default would be to allow to go by default the case of the very people whose sole purpose is to prevent Northern Ireland sliding into civil war.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The whole House will respect and understand the noble Lord's wish to see that the Army's case is put forward so that to use his own words, "its case should not go by default". I ask him to be cautious in the next stage of his speech. The Lord Chief Justice of England has been appointed, as announced by the Prime Minister, took into these events. Does the noble Lord realise that if he, with the best will in the world, puts forward one case, this will be bound to spark off somebody else to put a contrary view. There may be some who might be thought to do a disservice in prejudging and being irresponsible in so doing, but we expect from the tribunal the highest possible judicial standards.

Lord Balniel: I fully appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Allegations have been made which must be looked into by the inquiry. I have explained why, after the most careful consideration, I have felt it right not to allow the factual statement—and I will put it in as temperate and careful terms as I can—to go by default. I consider that it is my duty to put forward the facts. The security forces are trying to fulfil their task—

Mr. Leo Abse: rose—

Lord Balniel: I have given way once. The security forces—

Mr. Abse: The noble Lord, apparently, is going to give what he claims is a factual account of the knowledge in his possession. Does he not appreciate that, inevitably, once the announcement is made about the tribunal, everybody by the law of contempt would be silent? His statement now, pre-empting the situation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that the tribunal has not yet been set up. I hope also that the whole House will realise the shortness of time available for this debate and will allow the debate to continue. Lord Balniel.

Mr. Abse: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Abse: The noble Lord gave way to me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hoped that I had made clear to the hon. Gentleman that the point which he was on was not in order. Lord Balniel.

Mr. Abse: I was putting to the noble Lord the fact that once it has been announced that there is to be a tribunal everybody will be silenced. Does not the noble Lord appreciate that in making a statement now he will spread the impression throughout the world that the Government are pre-empting the situation and giving a direction to the Lord Chief Justice as to what are the facts? Is not this a disastrous course to take?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. No one is silenced, anyone can express his views in the debate, and the Motion has not yet been put before the House. Therefore, I am perfectly entitled to put the facts as I know them.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Under the law a tribunal is not a court of justice and no one is precluded from making any comment he wishes to make. whether or not the tribunal is set up.

Lord Balniel: The security forces are trying to fulfil their task in incredibly difficult circumstances under orders to use no more force than is necessary to preserve law and order. In the process of using minimum force they have suffered many casualties and death. This weekend, for instance, another soldier died of his wounds.
The pattern of events in recent months has shown the continued ability of I.R.A. terrorists to wreak havoc and destruction. However, if we analyse the recent activities of bombers and gunners we do not see a picture of growing strength but


rather one of growing desperation. The continuing build-up of information has enabled the security forces to form a clearer picture of the organisations, tactics and whereabouts of the I.R.A. This in turn has led to a significant increase in the number of arrests of wanted men and in the finds of arms, ammunition and explosives. Some areas of Belfast which were previously largely under terrorist domination have now become nearly trouble-free. In other areas where the I.R.A. has been particularly active in the past its command structure has been disrupted.
So the I.R.A. has changed its tactics. It has recently concentrated its efforts on what are described as the "soft", the "easy" targets; the police, or the Ulster Defence Regiment man in his home. Three policemen were murdered at the end of last week—one in Londonderry. Another policeman had his leg amputated today as a result of an explosion. The I.R.A. has also concentrated on hit-and-run attacks and ambushes from the safe haven across the border. We saw another attempt only last night. I.R.A. men have developed the deliberate use of crowd cover, either mixing themselves amongst demonstrations or causing explosions among the general public in shopping areas. From behind the general public, who are, of course, often quite innocent of any evil intention, they mount attacks against the security forces. This is a new pattern of I.R.A. techniques.
Civil rights marches suit the I.R.A.'s tactics and purposes well—not just because of their propaganda value but also because they give it a chance to create trouble. After repeated appeals by Catholic leaders, from both North and South of the border, a six-month ban on marches was imposed by the Northern Ireland Government. The decision was taken with the full approval of the British Government. The Northern Ireland Government, again with the full approval of the British Government, have announced their intention to extend the ban. The reasons for the ban are obvious. Marches by whichever community are likely to be provocative, as we have seen in the past. They stir up counter-demonstrations and lead to outbreaks of inter-communal strife. The task of controlling marches diverts the security forces from what I regard as their priority task of hunting

down the terrorists, and marches can be used as a screen behind which gunmen can operate.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Lord Balniel: I would rather get on with my speech, because this is a short debate.
It was known in advance that two attempts at marches were to be made during the past weekend. A statement issued by Army headquarters in Northern Ireland on Saturday emphasised the illegality of such attempts and that the responsibility rested with the organisers for any violence which resulted from them. The same afternoon, one attempt at an illegal march took place between Dungannon and Coalisland. The security forces used barriers to prevent the demonstrators from carrying out a successful march, and, mercifully, there were no serious disturbances.
I turn now to the events of Sunday afternoon in Londonderry. Intelligence information had given the security forces good reason to believe that the I.R.A. would exploit the opportunities afforded by the march and subsequent rioting to mount attacks on the security forces. Marchers began to gather in the Creggan, at about 2 p.m. By about 2.45, when they numbered about 800, they set off on a tour of the Creggan and Bogside, gradually building up their strength to about 3,000. The march was well marshalled at this stage.
Troops from the three resident Londonderry battalions were manning a number of barriers inside the edge of a Catholic area, and in particular in the area of William Street. The decision precisely when and where to intervene in an illegal march in order to frustrate it is a matter for the commander on the spot. In this case, no action was to be taken against the marchers unless they tried to break through barriers or to direct violence against the troops.
The marchers reached the barrier in William Street, east of the junction with Rossville Street, just before 3.40. There was a brief discussion between the march leaders, the Army and the R.U.C. The leaders began to move off, but stewards were unable to keep control and large groups of trouble-makers started to throw stones, bottles, steel bars, and other


Missiles—including canisters of CS—at the troops manning the barriers in the area. Water cannon were used, and the bulk of the crowd moved back to the open ground around Rossville Street, leaving behind a hooligan element still attacking troops at the barriers. At this stage troops used CS and rubber bullets against the rioters.
By five minutes past four the crowd in Rossville Street was largely dispersing. There was clear separation between the rioters at the barricades and the remaining marchers in the area. There had, however, already been two incidents foreshadowing the terrorist violence which was to come. At 3.55 a high-velocity round was fired across William Street from the direction of the Rossville Flats, striking a drainpipe four feet above the heads of a party of soldiers. A few moments later, a man was seen preparing to light a nail bomb in William Street; he was shot as he prepared to throw, was seen to fall, and was dragged away by his fellows.
Between 4.5 and 4.10, the brigade commander ordered the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, to launch an arrest operation against the rioters, who, as I have said, were well separated from the marchers. These rioters were flagrantly breaking the law; hurling missiles at the troops and establishing a degree of violence which was quite unacceptable. The level of their violence was highly dangerous to the police and the Army.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South asked about the responsibility for the decision to arrest. The arrest operation was discussed by the Joint Security Council after decisions had been taken by Ministers here. Where the barricades are actually placed is a matter for the operational commanders on the spot.
The Parachute Regiment, the Belfast reserve battalion, had been deployed to Londonderry as a precaution, and had been kept behind the line of barriers for use in this way in case it was needed. Three companies of soldiers therefore came through the barriers in William Street at about 4.15 p.m. They fired rubber bullets when necessary. It is the noise of these rubber-bullet firings which, incidentally, I believe is the reason why many of the marchers who were well

away from the area believed that the Army opened fire first.
Two companies made a number of arrests. One company found the rioters it intended to arrest withdrawing towards Rossville flats and followed them in armoured vehicles towards those buildings. On the way, three rounds struck one vehicle, and a burst of about 15 rounds from a sub-machine gun struck the ground just a few yards away from a group of soldiers as they got out of their vehicle.
The soldiers continued to arrest the rioters whom they had chased. They arrested about 28 in a matter of a few minutes. At the same time, they came under fire from gunmen, nail bombers and petrol bombers, some in the flats and some at ground level. Between 4.17 and 4.35 p.m., a number of these men were engaged. Some gunmen and bombers were certainly hit and some almost certainly killed. In each case, soldiers fired aimed shots at men identified as gunmen or bombers. They fired in self-defence or in defence of their comrades who were threatened. I reject entirely the suggestion that they fired indiscriminately or that they fired into a peaceful and innocent crowd—[Interruption.] I also reject—

Mr. Paul B. Rose: rose—

Lord Balniel: I also reject utterly the slurs made on the Parachute Regiment—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think that it must be clear to hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman has not given way.

Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect to you, a tribunal of inquiry has been set up. Is not the Minister entirely preempting—[Interruption.] Perhaps right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to hear the truth from the tribunal of inquiry—[Interruption.] I shall not sit down until I have made my point of order, so perhaps right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will be quiet. Is not the right hon. Gentleman entirely pre-empting that tribunal of inquiry by giving his own highly coloured account, which is quite contrary to the


accounts published by independent observers in at least 12 newspapers on this side and on the other side of the Irish Sea?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) will have heard that, technically, the tribunal to which he has referred will be set up by this House presumably later tonight. I hope that the House will wish to hear whatever expressions of opinion may be called during this very short debate.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the whole House wants to get on with this short debate, and I know that many hon. Members want to speak. But may I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? Whether or not the tribunal has been technically set up, if its report is to carry any conviction—and it is vitally important to save more lives that it does—is not it essential that the right hon. Gentleman brings this part of his speech to an end as quickly as possible?

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: rose—

Lord Balniel: I do not accept the hypothesis on which—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we are having a debate on this subject at all, surely it cannot be out of order for us to have a full factual statement from the Minister responsible for the Army. If we cannot have that, we cannot have a debate.

Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman is giving us the Army's version, will he include the statement that General Ford made on the 9 o'clock news on Sunday night and the statement of a lieutenant-colonel of the Parachute Regiment which contradict what the right hon. Gentleman has said today?

Lord Balniel: With respect, these continual points of order are stopping me from concluding my speech, which I was about to do in literally a moment or two.
I thought it right to refer to the slurs which have been made on the Parachute Regiment—

Mr. Frank McManus: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is giving the Government's view of the events in Derry. Does he accept, when he does that, that most hon. Members on this side of the House will wonder why the Government have set up a tribunal of inquiry at all?

Lord Balniel: In the past week or two, we have heard suggestions that the Parachute Regiment is rather rougher and less sensitive to the needs of the situation than other soldiers—

Mr. Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear from the announcement which has been made that a tribunal is to be set up. We have heard that evidence is to be submitted to it. Is not the action of the Minister of State totally discrediting belief in that tribunal, when a definitive Government statement is put forward about these events? This is the way to ruin—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) knows that that is not a point of order.

Lord Balniel: Clearly, the tribunal will examine all the evidence that it considers necessary for the conclusion of its task.
I was about to say that there has been a sustained campaign against the Parachute Regiment in the last week or two. Suggestions have been made that soldiers in that regiment are less sensitive to the needs of the situation than other troops. We have heard suggestions that their discipline broke down over the weekend. I believe both those suggestions to be totally without foundation. In fact, they are part of a deliberate propaganda campaign to vilify individual regiments. At one time, the vilification campaign was directed against the Scottish regiments. At the moment, it is being directed against the Parachute Regiment.
The soldiers in that regiment are in fact a very experienced battalion, having been in Northern Ireland since September, 1970. They have nearly completed their tour of duty as one of the resident battalions. They are more experienced than most soldiers in Northern Ireland, and they are very well versed in the circumstances under which troops may open fire.


They are well-disciplined, and their commander and the Government have every confidence in them.
In a debate on very serious matters of this sort, it is worth mentioning, although it may sound trivial, that this battalion has an excellent reputation for establishing good community relations—

Mr. Rose: Nonsense.

Lord Balniel: Its soldiers are, for example, paying out of their own savings for a holiday abroad for a hundred poor Protestant and Catholic children. That may sound trivial, but it reflects great credit on the men concerned.
I end by repeating what my colleagues and I have said repeatedly. The Government do not believe that a purely military solution is possible to the problems of Northern Ireland. We must get on with the talking, and the key to talks lies in the hands of leaders of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland. When they are ready to enter into discussions without rigid preconditions, we are ready likewise to do so.
Meanwhile, the Services have the unenviable and dangerous task of helping to restore law and order. I believe that almost everyone in the country recognises that amongst all the horror, death and misery, amongst all the confusion and hatred, the Army has conducted itself with great skill and restraint in one of the saddest phases in the history of Northern Ireland.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I intend to be very brief and raise only two points, one dealing with the tribunal, the other with the current political situation. If there is one thing which should unite the whole House it is the statement that we should dispassionately and impartially establish the true facts about what happened on Sunday last.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: And back the Army.

Mr. Thorpe: I repeat what I said for the edification of the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and I hope that he will subscribe to it. We should impartially and dispassionately establish what happened last Sunday. By that I mean that we

should not pass judgment or counter-judgment on any particular group of persons involved. If there are any hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who believe that the facts are established beyond any doubt I hope that they will vote against the setting up of an inquiry tonight. That is the logic of their belief. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with all the authority of the 1922 Committee behind him can already say with complete certitude what happened on that Sunday, and what conclusions may be drawn I hope that he will dissociate himself with the conviction and sincerity we know he practices, and I mean that genuinely, from the Prime Minister and his other hon. and right hon. Friends in setting up this inquiry.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Having had a son who was deeply involved in an incident in Cyprus some years ago called the Gunyeli incident I think I know why it is necessary in this instance to set up an inquiry. In the meantime, let us back the Army.

Mr. Thorpe: I do not want to continue—[Interruption.] At least in regard to Rhodesia my loyalty to the Crown has never been in doubt, nor in Northern
Ireland. For once in my life may I recommend that in preference to the position of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, hon. Member's should adhere to the position taken by the Prime Minister this afternoon—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) would contain himself for a moment it would assist. The position of the Prime Minister was if I may say so wholly correct. When he was asked to express an opinion on certain charges or counter-charges he said—I am paraphrasing him and if I am inaccurate I withdraw and apologise:
These are matters which it would be better to leave to the inquiry".
I would respectfully agree and I believe that should be the tenor of this debate. If it happened that one side or another has been wrongly blamed and charges have been made which are unsubstantiated then there is no person in whom I have greater confidence than the Lord Chief Justice of England. I hope that in the debate we will not follow the example of the Minister of State whose motives, however, I can


completely understand, and we will not use this as an occasion for giving evidence on a matter which should more properly be left to the inquiry.
May I make two technical points on the inquiry. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), whose period of retirement from the Bar is of even longer duration than mine, has, as perhaps one would expect, allowed his prejudice to overcome his legal knowledge. If we look at the 1921 Act there is no question that the tribunal under Section 1:
…shall have all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in the High Court, or in Scotland the Court of Session, or a judge of either such court, on…the following matters.
Those matters are then set out and I will not rehearse them, but in effect they give the powers of a Court of Record to it in regard to subpoenaing witnesses and the law of contempt. To say that the tribunal is not on all fours with the High Court is something about which I hope at the end of this debate only the hon. and learned Member will have any doubt.

Mr. Paget: It is perfectly true that the Tribunals of Inquiry Act gives the tribunal, whether or not it includes a judge, powers to subpoena, to inquire and call upon witnesses. It provides nothing whatever which precludes anyone from commenting on matters which are the subject of the inquiry during the inquiry. It has happened constantly during other inquiries and will doubtless continue during this one.

Mr. Thorpe: I do not want to delay the House. I will only refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to Section 1(2)(c):
If any person does any other thing which would, if the tribunal had been a court of law having power to permit contempt, have been contempt of that court…the chairman of the tribunal may certify the offence of that person under his hand to the High Court…
It is therefore on all fours with the High Court and it is just as impossible to make comment on these matters when the matter is sub judice as if it were before an ordinary High Court judge.
The second point I wish to make—and the only other one about the tribunal—is that those who refuse to give evidence to the tribunal may be subpoenaed. They may be subject to all the same

penalties as any witness who has so refused before a High Court judge. If a large section of the community decides to boycott this tribunal, and I hope it does not, the tribunal will be possessed of powers which it will be impossible to implement and therefore it will itself come into contempt.
It is for that reason, because I believe the tribunal is the proper way to approach the matter, because I have the highest respect for and confidence in the Lord Chief Justice who is not only a distinguished judge but a person who comes from my part of the world and indeed takes his territorial designation from my constituency, that I believe it is important that he should be so supplemented in the judicial task which he has to discharge as to give the widest possible confidence to the world at large and to make it virtually impossible for anyone in good conscience to refuse to appear before the tribunal. It is no good the Government saying that they will leave it to the Lord Chief Justice. The Government have recently manifested this new-found passion for shelving off, pushing on to the shoulders of eminent judges, what are basically political decisions, whether it be Lord Pearce or now Lord Widgery.
The only point I wish to make about the tribunal is that it seems of the very essence that there should be two assessors, not because Lord Widgery is unable to discharge this task but because politically the tribunal has to be widely accepted. If the Government should on reflection change their view we will not say. "We told you so, why did you not do it the first time?" I want this tribunal to be a success and I honestly believe that unless we have those outside assessors the chances of acceptance are greatly reduced. I do not want to see those chances reduced, I want to see them enhanced.
There is no doubt that we have to take the political initiative in Ireland. It is no good saying today that it ought to have been done 5, 10 or 50 years ago, however tempting. We all know that, and collectively this House must bear the responsibility and some, alas, must bear it more than others. Nor should we bring forward political initiatives merely in response to particular acts of violence or cases of bloodshed. But I do get the feeling that the Government have


ploughed into the sand. The most difficult thing is to suggest what new initiative could be taken.
I want to put forward one or two things which I hope the Government will consider. First I do not believe that in a situation in which United Kingdom troops are permanently stationed in part of the United Kingdom any other group of persons should be responsible for what is happening other than the United Kingdom Parliament. The problem of security must be transferred to this House. It is fair to the Army to do so, and indeed I do not believe that it is fair to the Stormont Government to continue the present situation. Secondly if there is a Secretary of State for Wales and one for Scotland I cannot believe that it is right that there is no Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is full-time charged with responsibilities for the Province. With the best will in the world, the Home Secretary has multifarious responsibilities, and there should be a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with an advisory committee representative of all shades of opinion both in Northern Ireland and in this House.
If there are those left in Northern Ireland who are prepared to make a system of parliamentary government work, and that is a big "if", then I believe that in the present crisis situation we must consider the idea of having an all-party government in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] It is all very well for some hon. Members to say "Oh dear", but at a time when people are being shot and we have virtually a state of civil war in a part of the United Kingdom, anything must be tried, particularly when everything else has so far failed.
Only one country has tried this. In Switzerland there is a guaranteed percentage of places for each of the major political interests represented in the Confederation. To a lesser extent it happens in the Lebanon, where certain religious interests have a guaranteed right of representation. I trust that this idea will not be turned down out of hand.
I further believe that we must have a system in which minorities have a guaranteed right of representation in relation to their strength in the Province. It is no

coincidence that a system of proportional representation was written into the 1920 Constitution. It is no surprise that the predominantly Protestant Shankill area regularly returned two Protestants and one Catholic at the local government level and that in the Catholic Falls Road area there were returned two Catholics and one Protestant at the local government level. This occurred because minorities had rights and there was an interaction between the two communities. These are the sort of political initiatives that we must consider immediately.
I support what the Prime Minister said in his speech at the Guildhall—though it has received too little publicity—that we should not rule out the possibility that one day there may be a move towards a united Ireland but that that could not come about without the wholehearted consent of the Protestant minority in the North—I am, of course, speaking of "minority" in an all-Ireland sense—and without the conscious will of the majorities in both halves of the country.
I would not recommend someone in Northern Ireland to vote for unity unless he or she could see a rising standard of living in the South, with social legislation comparable to that enjoyed in the North. These things provide a challenge to both halves of the country.
I say to the civil rights movement, with whose objectives I have very much sympathy, just as much as I say to the extreme Protestant organisations, that whatever may be the feelings of political repression, I cannot believe that in this situation the right to march is one of the basic fundamental issues that must be defended at all costs, particularly when it involves an escalation of force and an increase in tension between the two communities. I would have thought that that was perhaps one aspect of political life which we could temporarily do without.
I conclude by again making it clear that I want this tribunal to be a success. I therefore want it to be able to approach its deliberations in a judicial atmosphere, and not after this House has put the case for or against one side or the other. I want it to be accepted and therefore I want the Lord Chief Justice to have the advantage of two assessors.
We must take the political initiative. I want to see the idea of talks, which was


put forward by the Leader of the Opposition—his idea does not seem to have made much progress after nine weeks—fully examined and I do not want to see any political initiative turned down on the old English basis that it has not been tried or thought of before. This is the time for ingenuity and initiative and for people of goodwill. Whatever the initiative, it may fail, but at least we can say that we tried.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: If all the speeches that are made in this debate from the benches opposite are conducted with such studied moderation as that made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), this debate will do no harm and may do some good.
However, I wish to make it clear in all humility that when one begins to think that one understands the position in Northern Ireland, that is the time to start all over again. Although I am of Northern Ireland, I have started all over again many times.
Earlier this afternoon I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister where the tribunal was likely to sit. I asked that question because I have today received from constituents a number of messages which give me great cause for concern. They are to the effect that Londonderry is today in the grip of terror and intimidation on a scale it has never before known, though I am bound to say that there has been terror and intimidation there before. I repeat, however, that it has not existed to the extent that it prevails this afternoon.
I am told that anyone who opens his shop there is threatened, that many Roman Catholics who are trying to get to work are being intimated by the I.R.A., that the banks are closed, that many post offices have also shut their doors—possibly all of them have closed; I have not had an opportunity to check—that the telephone exchange has closed, that old age pensioners have been unable to collect their pensions because the money has not been delivered to the sub-offices, and that the Crown buildings closed early yesterday. That follows the state of intimidation which I saw for myself last weekend in Londonderry but which is even worse now.
I therefore wonder whether the House really believes that an inquiry of this kind can be conducted in such an atmosphere and whether witnesses will be safe from intimidation. This is an extremely important matter which I trust will receive the urgent attention of the Government.
Speed in this case is essential. This inquiry is quite different from the Scarman Tribunal. It is true that that has taken a very long time and I agree that Mr. Justice Scarman is acting alone, a point that was made by the Leader of the Opposition. However, he has been dealing with many aspects and inquiring into many different occasions and events over a number of years.
In this case Lord Widgery will be inquiring into one event which occurred on one particular day, although there may be occasion for him to inquire into some things that happened a few days before. I therefore do not anticipate the same sort of delay in this case.
I have not had time to examine the Act, but I earnestly hope that the evidence will not be reproduced in the newspapers, because from such publicity in the case of the Scarman Commission came the most sectarian business, and the delay in that case has produced a great deal of bitterness, so that when we finally get the findings they will be largely irrelevant to the present situation and will only recall many unpleasant memories for many people.
I do not wish to anticipate the next debate, though it may help to economise on time if I ask now how far, if the tribunal is held in private, those giving evidence will be entitled, as it were unilaterally, to publish their evidence. This is an important question for the reasons I have given.
I do not know whether this applies to this tribunal or to some other investigation, but I should like to be assured that a full inquiry will take place not only into the motives of the marchers but into why an illegal march was planned and executed in defiance of a ban imposed on all marches and which I understand had the backing of all three sides of the political spectrum in this country, and presumably of Dublin as well. It is a fair question, especially when one is being asked about the transfer of security from


Stormont to this House, to ask the Opposition, since they have approved an overall ban on all parties over this period, and given the situation in Londonderry on Sunday, what their orders would have been to the troops—what they would have expected the troops to do in those circumstances.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my Friend explain why it is, when marches are illegal, that they are advertised in the public Press?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That is a point well worth looking into. I am afraid that I could not tell my hon. Friend—[Laughter.]' Hon. Members may laugh, but this is clearly a very serious matter. I did not see any of these marches advertised in the public Press, but this is something which should be looked into. I hope that the Civil Rights Association, as it was formerly called, will be examined to see just how far it has been infiltrated and how far the same personnel exists in it as in the leadership of the I.R.A.
Will the tribunal have sufficient powers to consider the evidence of certainly carefully selected reporters who were bidden to a Press conference given by both wings of the I.R.A. subsequent to the events of Sunday? They were called to the Bogside, where the Press conference was held in a room which, according to one newspaper report at least, was stacked with rifles. I hope that that will be taken into account by the tribunal as well.
I accept that, when death occurs on such a tragic scale—these were my constituents—an inquiry is inevitable, but I would also point out that all inquiries of such a nature must have some effect at least upon the morale of the soldiers—not just of those involved in the particular incident, but of all soldiers in Northern Ireland.
Also, perhaps, one needs a little more detailed assurance than the Prime Minister was able to give this afternoon in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that it will not affect the orders that the troops will have about, say, next Saturday's march in Newry, which is a very worrying occasion, that no amendment has been made to their orders or to the form that those orders took up

to last Sunday. We need an assurance that our troops will not be inhibited in defending themselves and law-abiding citizens. Nor must they be prevented from taking the initiative in the struggle against the I.R.A. when opportunity offers, if it does.
Whatever may come of this inquiry, there are thousands upon thousands of law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland who will never, as long as they live, forget the courage and humanity shown by both the police and the troops in the last two years or more. Most of them feel that they owe a debt of gratitude to the security forces in general which can never properly be repaid.
Nor have they forgotten—I hope that I will not be called contentious for saying this—that it was one of those same paratroopers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) reminded us yesterday, who was posthumously awarded the George Cross for saving the lives of Ulster children.

Mr. Orme: Having said that, could the hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in 1969, he advocated the British Army going into Northern Ireland at the behest of the Labour Government to protect the people of the Bogside?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: So far as I remember—I remember it pretty well, because I was pretty deeply involved—the Army went in at the request of the Northern Ireland Government, to aid the civil power. Those are the facts of the situation.
There is one question that one is bound to ask about Sunday's events. Enormous numbers of allegations have been made, in some cases by eye witnesses and in some cases by journalists, who seem to have been almost exclusively on the civil rights side of the barricade. Was there really none or virtually none on the troops' side behind the barricades, to see what was going on there? I can see that this would be difficult to arrange. Naturally, troops do not want journalists and reporters in among them at a difficult time like this when there is danger to life.

Mr. Simon Mahon: We appreciate the point—we have read the newspaper reports—but did not the hon. Gentleman see that the television cameras


of the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. were obviously behind the barricades? We saw the whole of the action from behind the barricades: we could not have seen it more clearly.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I did not see an enormous amount of television; I was listening to the radio on the particular day—but from many quarters I heard that the difference between the version shown on Independent Television and that shown by the British Broadcasting Corporation was very marked indeed. I will not elaborate that any further. Most of my hon. Friends know what I am talking about.
I should have thought that this was something which the authorities could have foreseen, that they could have arranged adequate coverage by reporters with the troops—

Mr. Rose: There were.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I wish that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), who has a considerable responsibility for what has happened in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Rose: rose—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I will not give way.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman has made a personal attack—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am not giving way.

Mr. Rose: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman made an attack—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that all hon. Gentlemen will remember that very many people hope to take part in this very short debate.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: rose—

Mr. Rose: rose—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I give way very freely in this House. If I am allowed to finish my speech, the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman made a personal attack.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have been attacked by the hon. Gentleman many times, so he need not—

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not in order for an hon. Member who makes a personal attack on another hon. Member to give way? On the occasion of the last debate, the hon. Member in question made a personal attack on the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I had to intervene then on the hon. Gentleman's behalf. I intervene now on behalf of my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that hon. Members will know that it rests with the hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In the circumstances, I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Mr. Rose: I am very grateful to the hon. Member. He knows that I have a very deep respect for him. That is said in all sincerity, because he is one of those people who has been very concerned about this. But the hon. Gentleman knows that, when we raised these matters seven years ago, he and his hon. Friends told us, "There is nothing wrong in Northern Ireland. The responsibility is not ours. They will not listen to us."
Did not the hon. Gentleman see the report in The Times yesterday by Brian Cashinella and John Chartres, which said:
A photographer who was directly behind the parachutists when they jumped down from their armoured cars said, 'I was appalled. They opened up into a group of people. As far as I could see, they did not fire over people's heads at all.'"?
The hon. Gentleman should watch television and read the Press—all of it.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Member should read some of my speeches in 1964 and 1965. I was the first person and the most frequent to say over and over again that the answer to discrimination in Northern Ireland was to provide houses and jobs, that, while there was a shortage of both, there would never be an end to discrimination. The words that I used earlier—carefully—were not


that there were no journalists with the troops but that they seemed to be almost exclusively on the other side of the barricades, and I adhere to that belief.
I am sorry that that happened. I should have thought that, with the lessons of 1968 behind us, what happened to the morale of the R.U.C. as a result of the persistent vilification and propaganda against them might have been taken on board now, and that we might have expected the same thing to have happened to the Army as happened to the R.U.C.
We have heard something about talks and I dare say that we shall be hearing more. The Home Secretary has said more than once how much he would welcome round table talks. The Northern Ireland Government have announced over and over again that they wish that everyone concerned, in the Opposition in particular, would come to the conference table. Indeed, they have said that it is in the paramount interest of saving life to do so, and I echo that.
If such talks are held, I am very willing to take part. I should go into them making it clear that I was not interested in any solution which meant that the citizens of Northern Ireland should no longer eventually find themselves part of the United Kingdom. I should go into the talks saying so, and I have no doubt that I should come out of them saying the same thing. I make that clear. But that does not preclude my taking part in talks; nor does it preclude my hon. Friends. That seems to me a not unreasonable attitude, which might perhaps set an example to other quarters.
There is an ample list which needs to be talked about in relation to the whole Northern Ireland situation. We all have our own solutions. I have my own ideas of what the solution might be. But these are ideas that I should be hesistant to put in public now because I know what happens to ideas when they are put out in public now. They are seized upon by one person or another—particularly one whom I shall not name—to take up a new political posture in order to escalate their demands, so any initiative is almost immediately smothered as soon as it is made. There

are great dangers—not for me but for some other people—in making public pronouncements.
One remembers what came to be known as "that programme" just after Christmas. I refused to take part because I did not believe in instant political postures taken up for the benefit of a television public. Nor do I believe it now. I have never felt more amply justified than when I watched that programme and saw the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) pinned like a butterfly to a board in a posture from which he will find great difficulty in extricating himself.
That is why in my view talks are so vital in private, even if—I say this advisedly—in taking part in them some of those who do take part incur the distrust of some of their following. I think that they have in these circumstances to be responsible enough to be prepared to incur that distrust, if necessary it is.
Who is to go to these talks? I make it clear that it is ludicrous, although it has got abroad to a great extent, of the hon. Member for Belfast, West to claim that his party represents 40 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland. It does not—there can be no doubt about that. There is great distrust of his party among the minority. We hear very often the phrase, "The silent majority". I think this House should be reminded that in Northern Ireland there is also a silent minority, and it may be that if we can get them past the barriers of intimidation they have a great deal more to offer than all the mob orators from whom we have heard so far. I say again to those who really want to save life in Northern Ireland that they have a duty to enter into private talks at once. I for my part am very willing to do so.

6.53 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: When opening the debate for the Government, the Minister of State for Defence produced what he said was a statement. Many hon. Members were annoyed that he should make a statement of fact and at the same time set up a tribunal. Nevertheless, he put forward the Army's view point as fact. He was not in the City of Derry on Sunday. I was. I therefore make no apology for putting my side of the story beside the story of


the people who took part in the march and for questioning a number of the facts put forward by the Minister today.
The Minister said, presumably on the authority of the Army, that approximately at 2 o'clock some 800 people gathered in the Bishopfields and that when they started to make their way down towards Rossville Street there might have been 3,000 of them. I know that it is against the rules of order to call a Minister a liar, and I do not propose to do so, but I wish to say that anyone watching either the B.B.C. or I.T.A. news broadcasts, which showed only a section of that crowd making its way down Creggan Hill, would be hard put to it to take at face value what the right hon. Gentleman has said and would ask whether a man entrusted with such a responsibility would not be better off learning to count before coming to this House with such a statement.
There were at least 15,000 unarmed, peaceful civilians at the demonstration on Sunday on the Creggan. Those 15,000 people were the friends, relatives or neighbours of 600 people interned in three concentration camps in the north of Ireland; they were the friends, relatives or neighbours of over 1,000 people held without trial in the gaols of the north of Ireland; they were perfectly well aware that there was a ban on parades and they did not pay any attention to it. Many of them had defied it before. All of them were prepared, if singled out by the authorities and convicted and sentenced, to face the six months' mandatory gaol sentence. None of them had been informed that overnight the death penalty had been imposed for breaking the ban on marches in Northern Ireland.
The march proceeded for a distance of between two and three miles before it was stopped by the Army. It was stopped in William Street, having come from the area known as Rossville Street corner. They came down the length of the street approaching William Street. There they were confronted by the usual Army barricade and there the usual confrontation broke out at the front.
The marchers were once again informed that the march was illegal. The organisers, as is the practice, went into consultation with the Army. A number of youths at the front threw stones and bricks at the Army, which was preventing them

from going along William Street, All of that had become a normal daily occurrence in William Street, as is admitted by every section of the British Press. What the authorities call a riot but was, if anything. a confrontation was on a smaller scale than usual and certainly much smaller than would have been expected with a crowd of from 15,000 to 20,000 people. The reason for that was equally simple—there were so many people in the street that it was difficult at times to find where to put one's feet, never mind use one's arms to take any concerted action against the Army.
After several minutes of stone-throwing to and fro, the Army decided to disperse the crowd. This it did, once again in its usual fashion. Rubber bullets were fired into the crowd; CS gas was fired into the crowd. Then a water cannon spraying purple dye was brought up. People immediately panicked and ran. No one hangs around, as hon. Members know from their personal experience, when CS gas arrives on the scene. People know what it is like.
People flooded back into the Bogside down Rossville Street. The organisers decided to hold the meeting at Free Derry Corner at the opposite end of Rossville Street. A lorry to serve as a platform was drawn up against Free Derry wall, a white wall with the slogan "You are now entering Free Derry". Those members of the platform who intended to speak climbed on the lorry. The organisers then moved through the crowd calling on the people to assemble at that point and attend the meeting.
Several thousand, possibly 7,000 or 8,000, people were standing at the base of the lorry. The rest of the people were making their way towards that point. The number of people left in William Street was very small and still consisted mainly of young people, but there were several older people who were continuing to throw stones and bricks at the soldiers and running down the street when CS gas was fired and possibly running up again once the air had cleared.
The majority of the people had ceased marching and were making their way, as best as could 15,000 or 20,000, along the street to the meeting. There were no shots fired at the British Army. That will be the subject of an inquiry and there will


be those who will not be members of either side, the Army or the Catholic population, but people representing the Press who were so appalled that they too were calling for an inquiry. They have stated their willingness to go before that inquiry and to tell what they saw, that the first shot fired came from the British Army, wounding a civilian below the knee.
That civilian was taken into a house where he was followed by a photographer. The photographer did not manage to get into the house before the Parachute Regiment came storming into the Bogside led by Saracen tanks from which they were firing and from behind which they were firing. At that time I was standing on a platform, as I said, at Derry Corner. Several people were standing in front of me. The meeting had just been opened and the chairman had passed the microphone to me, informing the crowd that I would be the first speaker.
The Minister of State for Defence has said that the rubber bullets might have been what caused the people to panic. We have heard so many of the CS gas canisters going off and so many shots being fired that a five-year-old child can tell not only what is a real bullet and what is a rubber bullet, but almost the calibre by the sound of the shot, so accustomed have the children become to the noise of the firing of guns. So what they heard and what we saw was not rubber bullets but the Parachute Regiment invading from the far end of Rossville Street, the Bogside area, and those people in front of me fleeing in panic and falling.
It was a sight I never want to see again: thousands and thousands of people lying flat on their faces on the ground. Immediately Mr. Ivan Cooper, a Member of Parliament in Stormont, threw Lord Brockway—who was also a speaker on the platform—to the ground and we all dived for cover. I was lying on my mouth and nose, and with the assistance of Mr. Cooper we continued as calmly as we could—which was not easy in the circumstances—to tell the people to keep their heads down and on no account to rise any higher than their knees but to crawl, crawl on the streets of their own city, on their hands and knees, out of the line of fire. That is what they did.
When I next raised my head to see what was happening, the people in front of us had dispersed, moved up the Lecky Road to the safety of the Meenan Gardens area, and the street in front of me was clear except for soldiers and scattered bodies of people, who probably never rose again but were carried away. We then got off the lorry, taking Lord Brockway first to safety, and then tried to calm and reassure hysterical women. Mr. Cooper then made his way back down to us where he himself became a target for the paratroopers as he attempted to move the wounded.
Whatever the reasons may be—and the permutations may be endless—I personally do not believe that the paratroops went berserk. I do not believe that a regiment like the British Parachute Regiment is trained and then goes berserk. It was a normal ordinary exercise to those men. I do not think they lost any night's sleep over it, but they fired into a crowd of unarmed civilians and thousands lay there.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Devlin: The hon. Lady will not give way.
A young girl, no older than myself, asked if I had seen her brother. I had just been running to the hospital to find the list of the dead. I have done many things in my life, but I was not able to face that young girl and say "Your brother is lying in the morgue of Altnagelvin Hospital and you have to identify him". The Minister of State tells us that the paratroopers opened fire when shots were fired at them. Major-General Ford was heard and seen by millions watching television last night to say that 200 shots were fired on the British Army before the British Army opened fire. We shall hear from all the reporters of newspapers and sound radio and from civil liberties observers—[Laughter.] [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not laugh."] We shall hear this and we are talking about intimidation. We shall hope to hear from those in the British Army who are not paratroopers about when 200 shots were fired. We shall hear from the B.B.C. that there were no 200 shots fired and we shall see that on that newsreel.
The British Army stated that they fired only at identifiable objects, targets


and people, people who were about to fire on them, snipers from the Rossville Street flats. Hon. Members may not be aware that the Rossville Street flats are 12 storeys high. If a British soldier shot at a sniper on the roof of those flats, that sniper would now be lying in hospital with multiple fractures, but there is not one body with such injuries as would indicate that the person had fallen from such a height. If those people were all snipers as the Minister of State for Defence says, or people throwing petrol bombs at the British Army, how does it come about that the majority happened to be shot in the back or in the back of the head?
I have had my disagreements with a certain reporter on The Guardian whose writings I criticised and made the subject of a discussion in this House. Quite recently he wrote an article in The Guardian about British paratroopers. Did they think that he was a sniper or that he was Simon Winchester who had done them down and that they might get him when they were at it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may talk as they like, but I hope hon. Members will bear with me because 13 people are 13 human beings.
The point might be made in this House that I should say who they were. This comes to another point made by the Minister of State for Defence. They were Gerald McKinney, John Young, Michael McDaid, William Nash, Hugh Gilmore, Bernard McGuigan, Jack Duddy, Michael Kelly, William McKinney, James Wray, Kevin McIlhenney, Gerald Donaghy and Patrick Doherty. The British Army killed every last one of them. They tell us that four of those men were on the British Army's wanted list. Let the Minister of State for Defence say which four—[Interruption.]

Mr. Michael McGuire: Listen.

Miss Devlin: —were on that list. The employed men on that list went to their work every day and the unemployed on that list have been drawing their unemployment pay every week at precisely the same time. Where were they supposed to be skulking and hiding away if they could not be found unless they were dead? Tell us who are the four now dead on that list.
It has been said that Derry City today is in the grip of the worst intimidation

it has ever seen. I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House, having a better idea of human beings than the people who sit on the Government side, will know the difference between a general strike and intimidation. Nobody went to work in Derry. Children did not go to school and in many of the schools in other parts of Northern Ireland the children walked out. And this was not only confined to Ireland. I had a letter today from an English family with no Irish connections and the mother said she sat and watched the B.B.C. news and cried right through it when she felt that such things could be done in the name of her family and her country.
All through the whole of the North of Ireland, throughout the 32 counties, people are outraged and indignant, and the Conservative Government by their activities on Sunday may well have lit a fire in Ireland the flames of which may not die out until the last vestige of British rule has ended in that country, until the last trace of British domination has gone. [Interruption.] Thirteen people died and 17 people were injured all in the space of 10 minutes, but they were not the first 13 people. We remember Barney Watt, Annette McGavigan and Eamonn McDevitt. The list goes on for ever of people who have been accused after their death. After accusations have been blazoned in the newspapers they have been found innocent but never cleared.
This is not our first bloody Sunday at the hands of the British Army. But we will be in Newry on Saturday and we will be marching. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] We have been kicked and batoned by the police, we have been imprisoned and interned and finally we have been slaughtered by the British Army. But we have yet to be defeated. I would say, not so much to the British Government on the benches opposite, but to the people who strengthen their nerve and stiffen their resolve at home and to their friends in this country, that the paratroopers may have had their day on our bloody Sunday, but we have a saying in Ireland that there is another day coming.

6.12 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is to be regretted that there is not more time in this House for us to discuss this


matter, since this is a vitally important matter not only for this House and for the people of Scotland, England and Wales, but especially for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that perhaps in the dark shadows of the past events this House will come to real grips with the reality of the serious situation with which we are now faced in Northern Ireland.
I would say to the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) that everybody I would claim to speak for certainly values human life, but I would say that there should be no discrimination in respect of the value of those lives. I have failed to hear from her any lament when British soldiers have been killed. I have failed to hear from her any lament when any members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the very City of Londonderry last week were brutally murdered.
In the Daily Mail today there is a report of a statement made by the hon. Lady in which she said:
The official and the provisional I.R.A. have each said they will kill 13 paratroopers in vengence for those who died on Sunday. That is 26 coffins coming home to England, and I won't shed a tear for any one of them.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] All of us who heard the hon. Lady today will realise that we have seen on the Floor of this House something of the hatred and real terror with which Northern Ireland is being gripped.
Let us make no mistake about it, there is a war on in Northern Ireland. The object of the Irish Republican Army, clearly spelt out in all its manifestoes, is for a United Ireland. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are determined to remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom. Because those people have borne with great patience, albeit with much frustration, the actions of the past days, let no Member of this House think that there is any weakening in the determination of the Ulster people to refuse any deals with the South of Ireland. So far as they are concerned a United Ireland is definitely out.
When we hear the leader of the S.D.L.P. in Londonderry, Mr. John Hume, say that it is a United Ireland or nothing, we learn the real objective behind this present state of agitation and riot and revolution in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland cannot accept that the only poli-

tical solution to the problem is a United Ireland.
I come to a point to which many of those who have supported me so far will object, but I must say what I feel is the reality of the situation. It is all very well for hon. Members in this House to sit here and listen to a statement at the Dispatch Box that there will be a blanket ban on parades and to feel that that is a solution of the problem. This blanket ban is unworkable among both sections of the community. The section of the community represented by the hon. Lady refuses to abide by the ban. The loyalist people feel they have every right to parade in their own districts.
The spokesman for the Opposition today said that the ban was brought in to deal with the Orangemen of Northern Ireland. Nobody could control the situation in Northern Ireland if either side took it into its head to go on parade. The whole of the British Army could not do it. Therefore, the blanket ban is unworkable. The sooner the Government take a hard look at the point and are prepared to allow sections of the community to parade in their own areas, the better for everybody concerned. It takes far more troops to stop a parade than to look after a well-marshalled parade; it takes far more troops to attempt to stop a parade than it would take to deal with a parade which was legal. We in this House must recognise this fact. These are the facts of the situation.
The matter of internment lies at the heart of the present problems in Northern Ireland. I have taken an entirely different line from many people on this side of the House who say they are loyalists. I believe that the House must look at internment and say why it is that if certain people can be charged, put through the courts and be found guilty—and this applies to 200 people who have gone through the courts in the proper way—others cannot also go through the courts in this way.
It is all very well for those who say "There will be threats." Yes, there will be threats. There are threats now. A friend of mine was shot in his own home. He was a Crown witness. He asked for protection, did not receive it and was gunned down in his own home. It is the duty of the authorities to see that men


who are accused are properly tried and put away.
It seems that parliamentary representatives on both sides of the House have a serious responsibility. Those of us who represent constituencies in another place have a serious responsibility. It is no use our saying "It is not my responsibility to make a move." I suggest that the Government should say to Mr. Faulkner's Government: "We believe that you should set up a Select Committee of your own House under whose authority internment is enacted to look into the problem of internment." I believe that all parliamentary representatives would then have a responsibility to look at this problem and that those Members at Stormont who object to internment would have the right to ask questions in a proper parliamentary forum and get the answers they should receive. Until we are prepared to look at the problem of internment, we shall go from bad to worse in this situation.
I have been accused by hon. Members on this side of wanting to open the gates of Long Kesh and to set loose the street gunmen. I want to do no such thing. I want the gunman and the murderers to be tried properly and put away. Until we are prepared to look at the matter, we shall have serious difficulties in Northern Ireland.
Let us face the situation. The murders, the buntings and the shootings go on. We have found today, even in this House, that there is reluctance by hon. Members to listen to a defence of their own soldiers in Londonderry. It is a sad commentary for an Ulsterman to come to the British House of Commons and find a reluctance by hon. Members to listen to a defence of their own troops in Northern Ireland.
I am reminded that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the City of Londonderry were brutally attacked with petrol bombs, and hon. Members saw fit to take sides with those who maligned them. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was practically discredited. Now there has been a complete turn of the wheel. The same attacks are being made on the British Army. I do not believe that every member of the British Army—

Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Gentleman is blaming hon. Members on this

side of the House for attacks on the British Army. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman said precisely that. There are hon. Members on this side of the House who have served their country as loyally as anybody who ever lived in Ulster. The hon. Gentleman has maligned not only us, but members of the British Army.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I made no such reference. I said that there were hon. Members in this House who were not prepared to listen to a defence of the British Army. I said that it was a sad commentary for an Ulsterman to come to the British House of Commons and see that hon. Members were not even going to allow the Minister at the Dispatch Box to defend his own troops.
I do not believe that every member of the British Army is an angel. Nor is every hon. Member of this House an angel. I do not believe that every member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Special Constabulary is an angel. However, I believe that, in the main, these forces want to do what is right. Individual soldiers in Northern Ireland have done things which no hon. Member could justify. I have personally taken the evidence, the photographs, to the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I am not here to defend every individual member of the British Army but I must in fairness say that the Army has been seriously maligned. The Parachute Regiment has been slurred and slandered. It is only right that someone should stand up and defend the Army. Hon. Members should be prepared to listen to its defence just as they have been prepared to listen to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster make very serious charges against these men who are serving their Queen and country in Northern Ireland.
All the debates in this House will not settle this problem. The only thing which will settle it is for Ulster men and women to realise that there will be nothing left for them if they are not prepared to sit round the table and, as reasonable people, discuss the problem. Once again I say that the people and party I represent are prepared to sit down and talk about these matters. I have suggested a Select Committee to consider the problem of internment.
Finally, the majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that our solution


lies in the context of a United Kingdom, never in the context of a united Ireland.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: When I have spoken previously on Irish matters I have paid tribute to the conduct of the British Army in an extremely difficult and dangerous situation. I do so again.
Regarding the events of Sunday, we have certainly had differing accounts from the Minister of State for Defence, from the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and from a number of Press and television observers. Because of this it was right to have an inquiry. I trust that everybody on either side who has allegations of any character to make will make them in evidence before the inquiry and that differences of opinion about the type or personnel of the inquiry will not deter them from giving information which could be valuable.
Yet even if the Lord Chief Justice is able, with the best combination of speed and thoroughness, to provide us with a most admirable report, at the end of which we may be able to say "This statement is true, that one is false blame must be apportioned for this to so-and-so and for that to somebody else ", how much further forward are we to getting peace in Ireland and Britain extricating herself and her soldiers from an increasingly intolerable situation?
The real lesson is that last Sunday's events were the most spectacular of a long line of bloodshed and cruelty which demonstrate more and more that we have reached a deadlock which cannot be resolved within the dimensions in which we have so far tried to resolve it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) put a question to the Government which the noble Lord did not answer: was it the fact that it was the intention of the Armed Forces to enter the Bogside, march or no march, and that this was an act of policy, to use my hon. Friend's phrase, to teach the Bogsiders a lesson? That question was not answered by the noble Lord. We shall want an answer to it.
I quite see that a military case might be made for doing so. An Army com-

mander might say, "In view of my duty to carry out the instructions given to me by my political superiors and at the same time to be as careful as possible for the lives of my men, it may be necessary in military terms, if I believe that irreconcilable armed enemies are in a particular district, to deal with that situation". But that means that a military commander would be being driven for sound military reasons to do something that would inevitably worsen the situation politically. My anxiety is that that is the position into which both the Army and the civil power are being driven in Northern Ireland, a situation in which, as far as we can see, there is no right answer. If marches are not banned, evidence can be produced that this will produce widespread disorder. If they are banned, we run the risk of a repetition of last Sunday's events.
We have been told repeatedly by the Government that if we do not intern people we cannot repress terrorism. It has been stated from another part of the Government benches that if we intern people we are interfering with the rule of law and making the whole problem very difficult to solve. The trouble is that in these and other confrontations both sides can produce apparently unanswerable arguments for their point of view. Why is that? It is because a large section of the population of Northern Ireland have now no confidence whatever in not merely the Stormont Government but the whole constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland.
In consequence, people who in normal circumstances would be thoroughly law-abiding citizens no longer have that sense of obligation to keep the peace which normally holds together human society. It is no good judging people who are in this frame of mind as if they were common criminals. It sometimes happens, when an impossible political situation exists, that people who in normal times and proper circumstances would have every respect for law, order and decency firmly come to the conclusion that they have no further obligation to keep the peace and no obligation to help the Army to deal with the I.R.A.
The Minister of State put the whole problem in terms of whether the power of the I.R.A. can be broken. He gave us an account of how progress was being


made in breaking it. His speech was followed by that of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who described the conditions in that town. It transpired from exchanges that apparently an illegal march can be advertised in the newspapers. It does not look as if the progressive victory of the forces of law and order over the I.R.A., in which the Minister of State has put his faith, is an accurate description of what is happening. It is not happening, because so many of the people of Northern Ireland may be deeply distressed, in heart and conscience, with the ruthless methods employed by the I.R.A. but are none the less not prepared to help the civil power against the I.R.A. and are increasingly prepared to help the I.R.A. in what it is doing.
In those circumstances it is no use simply continuing to abuse people for being or for aiding terrorists. One has to ask why the situation has arisen that so large a section of the population is in this frame of mind that we are faced with a series of administrative military questions, such as whether we should or should not allow marches and whether we should intern, and we find that all these are insoluble and unanswerable.
I believe, therefore, that that is why so many have come to the conclusion that what is called a political solution is necessary. This does not mean that one has to work out an elaborate political solution and carry it all through before one can hope to restore peace in Ireland. But one has to begin it, and it has to be begun with such a sense of reality and emergency that large numbers of people in Northern Ireland who now feel no sort of obligation to help in the task of keeping the peace will feel that there is some such obligation because there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
What kind of a political solution should there be? Here I disagree most profoundly with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He said that a united Ireland is out of the question. I would say that no political solution has any chance of being a basis on which peace in Ireland can be restored if it does not contain the clear objective of a united Ireland. I beg those of our fellow citizens in the province of Northern Ireland who now reject that

intensely to wonder for how long the present situation is to continue. When I first expressed these views in the House, when the House was recalled during the last Summer Recess, they were dismissed by many hon. Members as impossible, outrageous and encouragement to terrorists, and hon. Members said that the real job was to restore law and order.
I invite those who took that view to look back over the events of the past eight or nine months and to ask themselves whether they still have the same absolute confidence in rejecting this idea. I am glad to find that it is an idea that has made progress. We all know perfectly well that the best platform on which we can build anything was that set out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I was glad to find that the Government did not look with entire disfavour on this. I had thought at one time—it must have been from a mistaken report—that the hon. Member for Antrim, North was not entirely averse to what my right hon. Friend had proposed. I wish that that had been so.
I do not underestimate the enormous difficulty of creating a united Ireland. Many problems will have to be solved on the way and it will take a considerable time. I am quite certain that all parties have got to say "This is what we are working for".

Mr. Rafton Pounder: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I shall not give way. I am speaking only briefly and hon. Members will be able to express their disagreements with me in their speeches.
Without that solution, I do not believe that we shall make any real advance. Our ground of criticism against the Government is that there has not been the intensity of imagination nor the sense of urgency that the situation requires in taking what my right hon. Friend has put forward and helping to fashion it into a policy on which hope for peace in this unhappy country could be built.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I rise to make a brief contribution to this most important debate. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) did not make a very helpful contribution to our discussions today but it was a


significant contribution, because it is only by listening to her words that one can plumb the depths of bitterness and hatred that are rampant amongst the minority in Northern Ireland today.
In his own way, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was equally significant—his was a rather more skilful speech because he is a more sophisticated politician than the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster—but his speech had a moment of truth in it, too, when he said that this was a quarrel between the two communities in Northern Ireland and one which the British could not solve. This is a situation in which British troops are playing the unenviable rôle of keeping the two communities from destroying each other and being vilified in the process. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence was right today, as the Minister responsible for the Army, to put on record his statement of fact on what he believes to have taken place.
It is nonsense to say that we should await the findings of the tribunal. As the Leader of the Opposition said, Ireland will not wait for the tribunal, nor will Britain. Is it reasonable to ask the Minister of State to put on himself a self-denying ordinance which nobody else in this controversy will observe? Is the Prime Minister of Ireland doing it? Is Senator Kennedy keeping quiet? Will the Sunday Times Insight team be silent next Sunday? Will anyone in the House be silent and conceal his opinions until the Lord Chief Justice reports?

Mr. McMaster: I know my hon. Friend's great regard for the truth. Will he not reconsider what he said about the rôle of the Army being to keep the two communities apart? Is he aware that in the last two years, and particularly last weekend in Londonderry, there has been no confrontation between Protestants and Catholics? The 230 people who have been killed in the last two years have been killed entirely as a result of action by the I.R.A. As long as we foster this error we shall not get to the root of the problem, which is that there is a small, vicious, militant group which wants to impose its will upon the majority and is prepared to go to any lengths to do so. As to keeping the two communities apart,

the Protestant community is right out of the picture.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend must analyse the situation in his own way and I will analyse it in mine. I was referring specifically to the rôle of the British Army. My right hon. Friend was right to make his statement today; not to have done so would have been a dereliction of his duty. Whilst I certainly do not subscribe to the doctrine "my country right or wrong", I do not subscribe either to the doctrine "my country always wrong"

Mr. Abse: Is it not a fact that the Minister does not speak for the Army but for the Government and that, in making a statement giving his set of facts, he makes a Government statement at a time when the Government are appointing a tribunal? Does it not occur to the hon. Gentleman that that inevitably will make the tribunal lack credibility and be unacceptable to many people? Is not the intervention of the noble Lord disastrous and will it not discredit the tribunal?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know that the hon. Member holds that view strongly; he has already expressed it once in the debate. I do not believe that it is true. The statement which the Minister made to the House is one of the statements which the tribunal will have to take into account in coming to its conclusion. It is no less and no more than that.
What we are debating this afternoon comes down to the fact that 13 citizens of the United Kingdom have lost their lives, 13 families today are bereaved. That personal tragedy, which we should never forget, is the basis of our debate. If one asks who is responsible, one is perhaps entitled to ask another question: what do the dead care? They are dead; they are the people who have made the biggest sacrifice of all. The House of Commons should, therefore, today record its sympathy with the relations of those who have died and also our shame that, whoever is responsible. this could happen in a civilised country like our own in the second half of the 20th century. We must follow that up by a determination to do all we can to ensure that this never happens again, and that means taking not only security measures but political measures as well


to change the circumstances which produced this situation.
My final point is on the question of the political solution. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) mentioned the prospect of a united Ireland. I do not believe that is a possible immediate solution to the problem, but I certainly do not rule it out. The dividing line which the House should draw is not between those who favour a united Ireland and those who favour a link with the United Kingdom, but between those who favour attaining that end by persuasion and those who are prepared to use force. Those who are prepared to use persuasion should be listened to, whether their views are popular or unpopular. Those who are prepared to use force should not be listened to.
I do not want to go into the details of a political solution. We have heard some details from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. He mentioned the transfer of security to this House. There is much to be said for that, but we must recognise that it would not have made the slightest difference. We cannot run an Army from this House. It has to be run operationally on the spot. The right hon. Gentleman made a plea for constitutional reform. I agree with much of what he said, but I do not want to peddle paper constitutions at this point in our debate. My point, which is concerned not with the small print but with the capital letters, is that we must not lose our nerve, we must not despair and say that there is no solution. We must continually, even in our blackest moments—and this is surely one of them—be determined to pursue a political solution because this is the only ultimate solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. We must not be defeated by wickedness or folly or by any combination of the two.
The Government must persevere, and the Leader of the Opposition must persevere in putting forward his solutions, so that we can get a rational solution to the Irish problem. The darkest hour is the hour before the dawn, and I think that this is the darkest hour in the long and shadowed history of Ireland. We should create a chink of light in this darkness

and do everything we can both to create it and to take advantage of it.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: On many occasions I have not found myself in full agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). Today I wish to put on record with all the vehemence at my command, that I agree with every single sentiment she uttered. What happened last Sunday in Derry has dramatically changed the whole political outlook. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in the House a few months ago that men of moderation have nothing to hope for but that men of violence have everything to hope for. Until last Sunday I regarded myself as a man of moderation. I have consistently condemned violence. I have condemned every life that was unnecessarily taken, every shot that was fired and every explosion that has taken place. But I am consistent with my own conscience, with the fact that I was born and reared, and will be until the day I die, an Irishman. If I condemn the violence of anyone in Northern Ireland I must condemn the violence of the British Army that was meted out to the Irish people in the City of Derry last Sunday.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Nonsense.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman may think it is nonsense. Never did I realise more in my life, in the debate today and yesterday, but particularly during this afternoon's debate, that I am an Irishman and the hon. Gentleman is an Englishman. That is where the difference lies. The hon. Gentleman has no sympathy, no understanding, no conscience for the people who live in Derry who are Irish.
Another hon. Member, who has now left the Chamber, said during the speech of one of my hon. Friends, "Back the Army. Why do you not back the Army?" He meant that the Army must be backed, right or wrong—and the Army was disastrously wrong in Derry last Saturday and Sunday.
We are talking of settlements, of political solutions. The political solution that would have been acceptable last Saturday is not acceptable today. I tell the Home Secretary with all the seriousness at my command, so that he and the


Government will know, the British Army and those on the Conservative benches will know, and my hon. Friends will know, what is happening in Ireland. There is a national fervour throughout the 32 counties of Ireland that has not existed since the years 1916 and 1921. The disaster committed by the British Government in 1916, when they executed the 12 leaders of the Irish rebellion, eventually led to a national uprising, which eventually brought about the 26-county Republic. The events in Derry on Sunday exactly parallel that. Thirteen more innocent people who were not engaged in rebellion, who never used firearms, were shot in the back by the British Army.

An Hon. Member: Nonsense.

Mr. Rose: My hon. Friend has seen the bodies.

Mr. Fitt: I am not worried in the least by the fools on the Government benches.
It is for the reasons I have given that there is now a national fervour and national awareness throughout the 32 counties of Ireland that has not been evident since our country was unnaturally partitioned in 1921.
I make no apologies for what I say, because I know that I shall be proved right within the next 24 hours, the next 48 hours, the next week and the next month. I remember saying in this House that it would be a disaster if the British troops were taken out of Northern Ireland, because that would leave the Catholic community open to a backlash from the majority community, and there might be untold fatalities. But people in Derry, Belfast and my constituency now ask, "What is the difference between a backlash from the extreme Unionists and from the loyal regiment of paratroops? There might not have been so many casualties from a Protestant-Catholic confrontation in Derry, because the Unionists might not be so well armed.
Whether we like it or not, the British Army is no longer acceptable in Belfast, Derry or anywhere in Northern Ireland. It is seen as acting in support of a discredited and corrupt Unionist Government, and as such it is no longer welcome.
I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster. People who were involved in the civil rights demonstration believed they were supporting the cause of 600 men who were incarcerated in prison and internment camps throughout Northern Ireland because they had expressed their opposition towards the Unionist Government. They regarded it as a major civil right that before a person could be interned or imprisoned charges must be proved against him. They say that they will continue to march until the internees are released or brought to trial. I am not saying whether or not they should be brought to trial; I am saying that at present in my mind they are innocent, because they have been proved guilty of nothing.
I tell the Home Secretary, in words he will clearly understand, that the marches will continue. They will continue next weekend in Newry, and then the following week and the week after that, until the internment problem is tackled by the Westminster Government, because it is the only Government that can tackle it. Brian Faulkner and the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland would commit political suicide if they admitted at this point that they made a disastrous political mistake in introducing internment. Therefore, the internment problem can be examined only by the Government here, because it is a security problem. I agree that responsibility for security must be taken from the Stormont authorities and placed in the hands of this House. Whatever confidence we may have in this House—and it has been sadly shaken by the apologies put forward by the Minister of State this afternoon—confidence in the Northern Ireland Parliament is nonexistent.
I saw the Minister of State on "Panorama" last night. He acted as a judge and found the paratroops not guilty of any charge levelled against them. If the inquiry or tribunal is set up, and it is found that the Parachute Regiment was guilty of a dereliction of duty in Derry last Sunday, will the noble Lord resign? He should be called upon to resign, because he has passed a verdict. He has completely exonerated the paratroops, whereas that is not the verdict of other people, particularly in Derry, but throughout the island of Ireland—indeed


throughout the world among those who are uncommitted, who are impartial, such as the people who were doing a job in Derry on Sunday as television and Press reporters. Had they anything to gain by making such charges against the paratroops?
It is reported in this morning's Irish Times that an Italian reporter who was there said he saw a paratrooper shooting a young boy dead from a range of one yard. What will Tory Members say about that? It will be said that that reporter is a "Wop", a foreigner, a continental with no love for the British Government, and that he is biased in his reporting. Yet the Government are falling over themselves to be in the Common Market, where the Italians will be their partners.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is two minutes to 7 o'clock.

Mr. Fitt: If the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister or the Minister of State for Defence are thinking of stopping the march in Newry next week, employing the same tactics as were employed in Derry last Sunday, I can give them a little advance notice that I will be in Newry next Saturday, and I will bring as many constituents as I can. If there are lives to be lost, Ireland has a long history of suffering and injustice at the hands of Tory Governments. We may have been conquered on occasions, but we were never beaten. The only way to solve the immediate problem is to stop internment, which will stop the marches, take responsibility for security to this House, and in the final analysis suspend Stormont and take the British Army out of Ireland. There will never be peace until those things are done.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am reluctant to intervene, just as the House is reluctant to see the debate brought to an end. We shall soon need a longer debate so that we can make a fuller contribution to examining the problems of Northern Ireland.
I begin, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) yesterday in asking his question about Northern Ireland, by expressing sympathy with the relatives of all those who lost their lives in the tragedy on

Sunday and all those, including the soldiers, who sustained wounds. The quality of sympathy that the House extends is not strained by considerations of the religious, political or communal views of those afflicted. It is extended not to the victims of one act or another act, however committed by one man or another, but to the victims of a wider tragedy, that of Northern Ireland today, which begins to become greater and more remorseless than any of the men, whoever they are, who act as its instruments.
That period of 20 minutes or so last Sunday which killed 13 human beings—and some allege more—by its nature creates a new situation. It is yet one more tragic point of no return. Once again in this deepening tragedy it will be said, and said rightly, that whatever the merits, wherever lies the blame, nothing will ever be the same again. As I said on 25th November, we have reached a point now where reality is not what is but what is believed to be. Londonderry, 30th January, 1972, in that sense has passed into history and will itself play its part in determining the unfolding of future history.
Yet this House realises that 13 deaths in a few minutes are also to be set against week after week where equal numbers have been killed regardless, as was last Sunday, of guilty or innocence, whatever that may be, of Catholic or Protestant. More have been killed over a number of incidents in a single week or less. More have been killed in one tragic explosion in a bar in Belfast. There have been the murders of British soldiers off duty, of Defence Regiment members, of police and public men, in some cases brutally struck down in the presence of their families. This tragedy is now becoming greater than the actors who play their willing or unwilling rôle in it.
What we have to prove is whether it is to become greater than the ability of those who in this House—and I emphasise that here in this House is the ultimate responsibility—have to show their ability to command and not be commanded by it.
I welcome the inquiry. It is essential. All of us have been deeply disturbed by the reports of independent witnesses. All of us have heard or read the categorical statements of the Commander,


Land Forces. All of us know the uniquely difficult conditions in which the troops are operating, not by their own decision but by political decision. They are operating in conditions of guerrilla warfare for which no troops in history have been trained. They are operating in conditions and under orders for which politicians and not soldiers—politicians here, no less than in Stormont—ultimately have responsibility. I understand the sincerity of those who have given their accounts in this House, first-hand or second-hand, of what happened last Sunday. But I am not willing to countenance any effort in this House to judge the conduct of Her Majesty's Forces last Sunday until the inquiry has unfolded facts not yet known, adjudged between competing and fundamentally incompatible statements.
It is rather for us here to take a sense of grip and resolve—grip that we do not let passions, however natural, override wisdom and judgment, and resolve that we deal with this situation with authority, with no dragging of feet and with no competitive attribution of blame, excuses that it is the fault of others, even the responsibility of another Parliament, because in the last resort the responsibility, even the responsibility of continued delegation, must be ours.
Even now I remain of the view that the assertion of direct rule, which is within the competence of this House to decide, would be an action of last resort. I still take the view that it would be a confession of failure—on the part of ourselves and others—and manifestly not an easy way out; for who can be sure that the result would not be still greater carnage and anarchy?
I do not intend to go over the ground of my speech of 25th November. Nearly 10 weeks have passed. It was urgent then. Some thought that what I said then was perilously late. Today, let us simply draw the lessons not for the purposes of debate and division but for action and urgent action now.
The first lesson must relate to the position in which our troops were put, and day by day are put. It is a position immeasurably worsened by last Sunday, whatever the facts, whatever the truth, whatever the inquiry may reveal.
Her Majesty's Forces act not by their voluntary decision but under a political decision, if not a series of political decisions. If it is theirs not to reason why, we here have to reason why. We have to lay down the political ambience and we have to define the political parameters in which those political decisions are taken. The relevant political decisions in this case are taken not by this House but for this House. We have not been able to establish whether the two previous decisions which caused the deterioration in the situation and in the position of our troops—namely, the events of 7th July, 1970. and the internment decision—were taken by Ministers here or by Ministers there. We have still not got an answer to that question. Despite our urgent plea for information about the acceptance of Ministerial responsibility, this House has not been told.
Yet we in this House know that those two decisions and now this tragic third event have caused not a deterioration of degree but a deterioration of kind. It is Britsh soldiers, acting in the last resort as the agents or the instruments of the policies of this House, who are carrying the burden, and this House has no means of asserting its responsibility.
I take full responsibility for the order to British troops to take over full control of all aspects of internal security. I told the House in 1969—I have repeated it, and the House has approved—the political conditions in which the troops went in. In November I told the House how the troops were cheered in the Falls Road and in Derry as they marched in. They marched in as the assertion not of an Imperial Power but of the authority and insistence of Downing Street and of this House that they were going in to hold the ring, to protect any who needed protection from any threat, no matter whence that threat might come.
It was inevitable that the minority's fears of the majority at that time, real or imagined, should lead many Catholics to believe that our troops were sent in for their protection. But no one, tragically, believes that today. Over 18 months, our troops have been seen increasingly to be the agents of a political authority which is certainly the legal custodian of law and order but which is accepted as acting in a spirit not of neutrality but


of sectarianism—a political authority whose responsibility to this House is at best tenuous and undefined and at worst surrounded by confusion and an obscurantist blurring of responsibility.
We here have to insist, at whatever the cost, that the political orders given to the Armed Forces for whom we are responsible and internationally responsible are matters for which we have the accountability and the control. The enforcement of security without responsibility is the prerogative of the mercenary throughout the ages, and our Armed Forces neither want to be mercenaries nor can be allowed to be capable of being represesented as mercenaries. Neither is it any longer a question of their being deployed in aid of the civil power.
In September, 1970, I suggested that there should be a Minister of State stationed in Northern Ireland. That was dismissed out of hand at the time. I believe that the solution of some of the problems now and the decision which had to be taken before last Saturday might have been easier if there had been a Minister there to give a political view, because the only political view there is given by Northern Ireland Ministers.
On 25th November I felt that even that was not enough. A key proposal in the points that I laid before the House was the transfer of responsibility for security from Stormont to Westminster so that British troops would act under the direction of Ministers responsible to this House and so that decisions as cataclysmic as internment, if they were to be taken, would be taken under our ultimate control with a consideration of political as well as military and security consequences. If any special powers were needed they should be taken not by a stroke of a Ministerial pen but under the rigid conditions which this House has jealously preserved. As far as I am aware this proposed transfer has not yet been considered. Regardless of whether consideration of the remaining 14 points is to be expedited or frustrated, this decision about security should in our view be taken now. It is minimum condition for enabling British troops to be, and appear to be, impartial as between those members of both communities who forswear the use of violence for political aims.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has reminded the House of what I said in November: that if men have nothing to hope for, men of violence have something to shoot for, to bomb for, to murder for—and increasingly tens of thousands who would hold to a moderate, non-violent posture are being driven, not by the individual behaviour of the troops but by the orders under which our troops operate, first into an unwilling but increasingly determined tolerance and then into support for violence.
Hon. Members will have read reports of reactions south of the Border. Some may have been given reports at first hand as I have. We may deplore those reactions but we should be foolish to ignore them. Last week Mr. Lynch, who has been criticised greatly by hon. Members opposite, arrested gunmen. Were he to do so today he would be driven from office. Last Sunday's events throw grave doubts on whether any jury would convict. This is now in a very real sense an all-Ireland problem.
The House must realise, averse though we are to it, that this is 1911, 1912 and 1913 again. God grant that it is not 1920 and 1921. It is those pre-war years with all that that could mean, and in one sense it is worse in that the right hon. Gentleman, unlike Asquith, has no apparent right of direct intervention.
On 25th November I referred to the power of legend, to the history books which the Catholic and Unionist children read, so different as they are, in their individual schools. By 6 p.m. last Sunday there were already two histories of what happened in William Street and we have heard them in this House today. God grant that the inquiry may help to produce the truth, but let us recognise that the two legends will outlive the truth.
I have told the House of the realities of the internment decision. The reality is that, whatever the gains, as one gunman is caught two more spring up, as from dragon's teeth. We are still not told on whose initiative and orders the internment decision was taken. Last Sunday was of its kind another such event, part of history before the blood was even dry on the pavement. History will record it as the creation of a further unpaid recruiting sergeant for the I.R.A. What was created last Sunday was a still more


efficient recruiting officer, not for the guerrilla lines of today but for the guerrilla lines of the 1980s and 1990s.
Before sitting down I must record my deep concern about the long delay in setting up the all-party talks for which I called on 25th November. On 28th November, nine weeks ago yesterday, I understood that both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister welcomed and accepted my proposals for discussion. My concern today is first that weeks have passed and secondly that the two right hon. Gentlemen have hardened their hearts about the form and purpose of the talks.
Dealing with delay, I took my share of the responsibility. Admittedly I was out of the country for four days in December. The Prime Minister and I empowered the Home Secreary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to work out in detail what we had discussed. That meeting took place on 17th December. It was the subject of a letter from my right hon. Friend on 30th December. All of this has been published in the Press so there is no breach of Privy Council privilege. There was no reply to that letter until 14th January. I cannot indicate how far the proposal was then changed because this was what we discussed, but two things are clear.
First, the Home Secretary has spent much more time trying to censor the B.B.C. than in getting the talks mounted. Secondly, he was too ready to assume their failure because of public statements by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and therefore he is against proceeding. For over a week the Government have briefed publicly their insistence on Privy Council terms. In this afternoon's paper before this debate this has been put out, and I cannot accept this limitation.
Our proposal is for inter-party talks here designed to move as quickly as possible to all-party talks between Westminster and Stormont and as quickly as may be three-Parliament talks. In the interests of speed we were prepared to bypass the Westminster talks and go straight to Stormont. All we are offered today are Privy Council talks at Westminster level not directed to working out the basis on which they can be extended

to Stormont and Dublin. If many weeks late we have open-ended talks with no limits on subject matters, any specially sensitive question can be referred to a sub-committee of Privy Councillors who can then report back to the Westminster talks.
This is urgent and I must ask the right hon. Gentleman not to go on dragging his feet. The Home Secretary has produced no policy for Northern Ireland since his announcement last September that he was willing to hear the views of different Ulster parties and interests. That got us no further because of internment. Even so, very full reports of my own talks, taken by a Cabinet official have been available to the right hon. Gentleman. He knows what the parties in Northern Ireland think. He does not have to wait for those particular talks. Why is it that we have this falling away from what I thought was an agreed position? Is it a veto from Stormont? Is it Mr. Faulkner? Is it not that the right hon. Gentleman really believed that we were within days of a military solution? We had a lot of this in the Press just before Christmas. Does anyone believe there is a military solution without a corresponding and simultaneous effort to secure—although not of course until the right conditions obtain—a political solution?
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will announce today that after all these weeks he accepts the 25th November programme in full. If not we shall have to go ahead with those who will talk, and this will in consequence identify those who refuse to talk. I do not disguise from the House that the events of last weekend, like internment, make all our tasks harder. Time is not on our side. I said that in November. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes appears—perhaps he will clear this up—to carry on as though time was his ally in Northern Ireland. It is working remorsely against us.
Our vote tonight will not involve any expression of opinion or judgment about the conduct of the troops. We shall await the report of the tribunal. What it does is to record our disapproval of the continued procrastination over the talks. What it does is to demand urgent action to begin the all-party talks on the 15-point plan and any other proposals which


any party desires to make. Above all, in advance of these talks, our vote calls on the Government to take immediate measures, to transfer de jure and de facto responsibility for all aspects of security, for all orders under which our forces operate, to the United Kingdom Government and to this House.
I do not think anyone will disagree with me when I say that this week's events and those of the week before re-emphasise that there can be no future, no military solution, without a political solution. I believe increasingly that there can be no political solution without a united Ireland, with proper safeguards for the Ulster majority at the end of the road. This I believe is what history, looking back, will record. The responsibility falling on this House today and the speed and power and wisdom of our reaction to last week's events may be our last opportunity. Our responsibility is to do all in our power to ensure that that history is not written in blood.

7.19 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): This has been a debate of great sadness. Even while we were talking another British soldier was shot in Belfast this afternoon. No one in this House lacks either awareness of the tragedy of the situation or the goodwill to try to achieve a settlement. All of us really want to see the people of Northern Ireland living together in peace—an ambition on a major scale. If I can ever make a small contribution to that I would feel that I had done something useful. I am afraid that this debate, lasting only three hours, cannot carry us far in this tangled problem. I fear that it has illustrated the depth of division there is in this House about the solution of this problem—the division between, for example, the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Both strongly hold their own points of view, totally opposed as to what is the right solution—[Interruption.]—for the people of Northern Ireland; whether the Protestant majority should be brought into a united Ireland or whether they should be entitled to exercise their right to stay out. This fundamental difference has come out clearly today.
I fear that I shall have to spend a certain amount of time answering the points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to do this because I wish to deal with some of the other comments that have been made in the debate. However, I must do so because I gather that he and his party intend to divide the House tonight and that the main reason for this is that, in their view, we have been dilatory in holding all-party talks—

Mr. Harold Wilson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Maudling: —but this is totally incorrect.
I welcome what the Leader of the Opposition said about welcoming this inquiry. He is absolutely right and I agree that one cannot have a higher authority for an inquiry than the Lord Chief Justice. I welcome what he said about direct rule being the last possible resort. That, too, is absolutely true. The transfer of all responsibility for security, quite apart from the very serious practical problems that would be involved, would I think be regarded by the Protestant community of Northern Ireland as tantamount to direct rule, and the right hon. Gentleman must bear this in mind.
Having said that, I now challenge him on several points. For example, he said that his hon. Friends had never been told who was responsible for the internment decision and how it was reached. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I have said time and again, both before and after the decision, that it was a decision which was constitutionally in the hands of the Northern Ireland Government but that they would not act without our agreement. They did not act without our agreement. That is the perfectly simple position and it has been explained time and again. [Interruption.]
I wish particularly to refer to the situation over talks and the implication in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that we have been holding up inter-party talks on the situation. I feel strongly about this. For months past I have been trying to do precisely that, namely to have inter-party talks. Since the summer I have been trying, as the


appointed chairman of inter-party talks, to get people together to talk to me. The Northern Ireland Labour Party came. The Northern Ireland trade unions came. The Alliance Party and the Liberal Party came. Everybody came except the S.D.L.P. and the Nationalist Party, the representatives of the Catholic minority.
I have been trying to get these talks going and I was trying to do so before the Leader of the Opposition took his initiative. He suggested that, first of all, there should be talks here at Westminster followed by talks of an all-party nature in Northern Ireland. We agreed.
Subsequently the idea was changed and they wanted us to proceed as quickly as possible to talks with the Northern Ireland parties, and it was the hope of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who unfortunately is not with us today, that he would be able to persuade the S.D.L.P. at a meeting to be held in London on 20th December to come to these talks.
I entirely agreed and welcomed that course and I said, in effect, "I wish you the best of fortune. I hope that you can persuade them to come", but in the event he failed. The S.D.L.P. would not come and therefore the right hon. Gentleman's initiative of 20th December came to a complete halt.

Mr. Harold Wilson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Maudling: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is so. If he reads the newspapers for the following day he will see that it is so, and everything that has been said since proves that it was the case. I welcomed his initiative and I still welcome it, but it came to a dead halt on 20th December.
Subsequently a letter was sent to me asking if I agreed that talks could take place on the basis of no conditions. I agreed to that course and I still agree to it. This is what we should be aiming to get. We want to get talks among all concerned instead of arguing about whether nine or 10 weeks have gone by and who is responsible for what.
The Leader of the Opposition accuses me of dragging my feet and he intends to vote on this point. [HON. MEMBERS: ["Nonsense."] Let me assure him that

he and his hon. Friends will not be voting on a valid point. We have not dragged our feet. We are not dragging our feet. [Interruption.] One thing above all we want to see taking place are talks among all people with any part to play in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I have said time and again, and I repeat now, that a settlement can come only by agreement, and agreement can come only by talking. Without talking, agreement cannot be reached.
This debate arose from incidents in Londonderry. The account by the Army of what happened was, as one would have expected, clear, detailed and documented—[Interruption.]—and it will be examined in detail—

Miss Devlin: rose—

Mr. Maudling: —by the Lord Chief Justice, and the Army will offer every facility to him that he requires.
All that I will say about the rôle of the Army in Northern Ireland—I say it because time and again it has been said that the Army is a tool of a corrupt political régime in Stormont, which is utterly untrue—is that it is not there at its request. Our soldiers do not want to be there. They did not ask to be there. They are performing a duty which has been imposed on them as part of their loyalty to the Crown. They are there to protect law and order—[Interruption.]—and the Army is brought into action only when law and order are threatened.
When illegal force is evident, legal force must be employed if any organised society is to remain. The British troops always operate under the rule of common law that no more force may be employed in protecting law and order than is necessary. However, the degree of force that is necessary depends on what is done by the lawbreakers. People who attack British soldiers with bullets and bombs are themselves responsible for the degree of force that the Army has to use to resist them.
Last Sunday's procession was organised clearly in defiance of the law—[Interruption.]—and in defiance of a ban on political processions, a ban which was asked for repeatedly in the past by both sides, a ban of which this House has always approved and a ban which most people in this country think is common sense,


knowing the danger that can arise from political marches.
That ban was legal. This march was organised clearly in deliberate contravention of it and, that being so, how could any Government do other than instruct their security forces to prevent a breach of the law? That is what took place. The security forces were told to prevent the march and they prevented it with the minimum use of force. [Interruption.]

Miss Devlin: Give way.

Mr. Rose: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: He must give way.

Mr. Maudling: As for talk about incursions into the Bogside, let me dispose of this rumour straight away. There was never for a moment a suggestion that the time had come to teach the people of Bogside a lesson. The troops were, of course, moving in to arrest hooligans who were bombarding them with stones and bricks, and it was obviously right and proper for soldiers who had been bombarded for a considerable time with stones and bricks to move in to arrest the people who were bombarding them.
I say again that the people who organised this procession, though I readily recognise that they did all they could to make sure that it was lawful and peaceful, must have known—they were warned about this—that hooligan elements, as they often associate themselves with processions, would use the shield of the procession to conduct violent attacks on the British Army. The people who carried out that procession did so in the knowledge of this danger, and therefore carry responsibility—[Interruption.]
I go further. I say to the hon. Member for Belfast, West that if he is saying, as I thought he said earlier, that he intends deliberately to organise further marches—

Mr. Fitt: Not organise them.

Mr. Maudling: —or participate in or support other marches deliberately in defiance of the law of his country—

Mr. Rose: Why not shoot him now?

Mr. Maudling: —the consequences may be very grave.

Miss Devlin: Give way.

Mr. Maudling: I am saying—

Miss Devlin: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. McManus: rose—

Mr. Maudling: I am putting a simple proposition. I am simply saying that those who organise a breach of the law bear a heavy responsibility for what follows that breach. The law will be maintained—

Miss Devlin: Atrocious!

Mr. Maudling: —by the security forces with the minimum force necessary for that purpose. If force is required on a substantial scale, it will be solely and only for the people who are challenging the forces of law and order—

Mr. Rose: Disgraceful.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Maudling: —and deciding their own tactics.

Mr. Rose: Disgraceful.

Mr. Heffer: Shameful.

Mr. Maudling: This is not disgraceful. I wish to conclude what I am saying on this point—

Mr. Rose: Why not shoot him now? Why wait till Sunday?

Mr. Orme: Bring your soldiers.

Miss Devlin: rose—

Mr. Maudling: All I am saying is the simple proposition that those who deliberately set about defying the law and attacking the law carry a very heavy responsibility.
My final point is that we can achieve success in Northern Ireland only if we cling to our clear objectives of dealing with a policy of violence and achieving a political settlement through discussion between all parties involved.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 304.

Division No. 50.]
AYES
17.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Albu, Austen
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth


Ashley, Jack
Garrett, W. E.
Marquand, David


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Atkinson, Norman
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Golding, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Barnes, Michael
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Meacher, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Grant, John D. (Islington E.)
Mendelson, John


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mikardo, Ian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Millan, Bruce


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hamling, William
Molloy, William


Bradley, Tom
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hattersley, Roy
Moyle, Roland


Buchan, Norman
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Ronald King


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Health)
O'Halloran, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Malley, Brian


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, Bert


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas


Cohen, Stanley
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Coleman, Donald
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Paget, R. T.


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pardoe, John


Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cronin, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tarn
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pendry, Tom


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prescott, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Gerald
Rankin, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Delargy, H. J.
Kerr, Russell
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Richard, Ivor


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Lamond, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Dormand, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roderick,CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leonard, Dick
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roper, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rose, Paul B.


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Sandelson, Neville


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edelman, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Ellis, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkln, Rt. Hn John (Deptford)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, Fred
McCann, John
Sillars, James


Ewing, Henry
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McGulde, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Fisher.Mrs.Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackie, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mackintosh, John P.
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McManus, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Foot, Michael

Steel, David


Ford, Ben






Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Tuck, Raphael
Whitlock, William


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Urwin, T. W.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Strang, Gavin
Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Swain, Thomas
Wallace, George
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)
Watkins, David
Woot, Robert


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weitzman, David



Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Drayson, G. B.
Iremonger, T. L.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dykes, Hugh
James, David


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Eden, Sir John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Astor, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jessel, Toby


Atkins, Humphrey
Emery, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Awdry, Daniel
Farr, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fell, Anthony
Jopling, Michael


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fidler, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Batsford, Brian
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kilfedder, James


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fortescue, Tim
Kimball, Marcus


Benyon, W.
Foster, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fowler, Norman
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Biffen, John
Fox, Marcus
Kirk, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kitson, Timothy


Blaker, Peter
Fry, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Knox, David


Body, Richard
Gardner, Edward
Lambton, Antony


Boscawen, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Lane, David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bowden, Andrew
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife E.)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Bray, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
Loveridge, John


Brewis, John
Goodhew, Victor
Luce, R. N.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gorst, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gray, Hamish
McLaren, Martin


Bryan, Paul
Green, Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Grieve, Percy
McMaster, Stanley


Buck, Antony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bullus, Sir Eric
Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Burden, F. A.
Gummer, Selwyn
Maddan, Martin


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gurden, Harold
Madel, David


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maginnis, John E.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Cary, Sir Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marten, Neil


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maude, Angus


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray


Churchill, W. S.
Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clerke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Havers, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Clegg, Walter
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Cockeram, Eric
Hay, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Cooke, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)


Cooper, A. E.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cordle, John
Heseltine, Michael
Moate, Roger


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hicks, Robert
Molyneaux, James


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Terence L.
Money, Ernle


Costain, A. P.
Hiley, Joseph
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Critchley, Julian
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monro, Hector


Crouch, David
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus


Crowder, F. P.
Holland, Philip
More, Jasper


Curran, Charles
Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hordern, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.MaJ.-Gen. James
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Mudd, David


Dean, Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Murton, Oscar


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Dixon, Piers
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Neave, Airey


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hunt, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hutchison, Michael Clark








Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Nott, John
Rost, Peter
Tilney, John


Onslow, Cranley
Royle, Anthony
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Oppenheim. Mrs. Sally
Russell, Sir Ronald
Trew, Peter


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tugendhat, Christopher


Osborn, John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Scott, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sharples, Richard
Vickers, Dame Joan


Paisley, Rev. Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Waddington, David


Parkinson, Cecil
Simeons, Charles
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Peel, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Percival, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Soref, Harold
Wall, Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Speed, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Pounder, Rafton
Spence, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sproat, Iain
Warren, Kenneth


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stainton, Keith
Wells, John (Maidsdtone)


Prior. Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stanbrook, Ivor
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wilkinson, John


Raison, Timothy
Stokes, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Redmond, Robert
Sutcliffe, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Reed, Laurance (Bolton E.)
Tapsell, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Worsley, Marcus


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Younger, Hn. George


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)



Ridsdale, Julian
Tebbit, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)



Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)



Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

NORTHERN IRELAND (TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY)

Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday, 30th January which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.42 p.m.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This small but important Bill has three main provisions. First, it increases the statutory limits on the borrowing powers of the Electricity Council and boards in England and Wales and of the Scottish electricity boards. Secondly, it authorises contributions to accelerated expenditure by the industry designed to promote employment. Thirdly, it removes certain impediments to the transfer of properties between boards.
Clause 1 raises the statutory limit on aggregate outstanding borrowings from £4,400 million to £6,500 million for the Electricity Council and the electricity boards in England and Wales, and from £800 million to £1,200 million for the Scottish hoards. The new limits are estimated to meet the borrowing requirements of the industry up to the end of March, 1978.
The statutory limits on outstanding borrowings apply to the aggregate of temporary borrowings, the principal of stock outstanding, except compensation stock, the outstanding principal of securities issued for the purpose of borrowing foreign currency, and the principal of outstanding Government advances.
The present limit of £4,400 million on aggregate outstanding borrowings by the Electricity Council and boards in England and Wales, which was set by the Electricity and Gas Act, 1963, was at that time expected to be reached by March, 1970, but, as I explained to the House on 2nd March last year, when the Electricity Council's borrowing powers were last under review in the debate on the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1971, a scaling down of the industry's investment programme took place as it became apparent that earlier assumptions about the growth of the economy and demand for electricity had been over optimistic. In consequence, the statutory

borrowing limits have served for a further two years beyond the 1963 expectation. Since 1964, the plans of the electricity industry have been successively reduced. Capital expenditure rose to a peak of £670 million in 1966–67 and has since fallen year by year. In 1970–71, the last complete financial year, it was under £400 million.
As expansion of the economy gathers momentum, capital expenditure in this industry will increase again, but the prospects are that for another year or two it will continue at a relatively low level. The low level of capital expenditure in the past few years is the main reason for borrowing powers having lasted longer than was expected in 1963. Details of the past and present developments in the industry are to be found in the brochures which have been published by the Electricity Council and the Scottish electricity boards, copies of which have been made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
Over the past eight years, the number of power stations has been reduced from 236 to 187, as old small stations have been taken out of service to be replaced by smaller numbers of larger stations. Thirty-nine of the 500 megawatt sets are now in service, and the remainder of the 47 originally ordered are expected to become operational during next winter. The number of employees in the industry now is about 188,000; total sales have increased between 1962–63 and 1970–71 by over 50 per cent.; and the industry's revenue in England and Wales from electricity sales has gone up from £750 million to nearly £1,400 million.
The size of the contribution made from internal resources does, of course, in addition to capital expenditure, have an important influence on borrowing needs. In the past two years, the fact that increases in electricity prices have not kept pace with the increases in the industry's costs has meant lower profits and higher borrowing. As a result of this, the proportion of the industry's capital requirements financed from internal sources has fallen below the high level of 77 per cent. achieved in 1969–70 to 53 per cent. in 1970–71. The estimate for the current year is 60 per cent.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Would it not be appropriate to mention


that the electricity industry is in its present financial position because the Government asked it to hold back prices increases?

Sir J. Eden: I am coming to that point now.
The increases in electricity prices made by the boards in the early months of last year were the first general increase since 1967. These were kept as low as was practicable generally below the levels that would have been justified by costs. In the financial year 1970–71, the increase of over £200 million in operating costs, a substantial element of which was due to higher coal and oil prices, more than offset the gains from increased turnover and improved efficiency, and the industry made its first loss. In the present financial year, revenues are affected by the readiness of the boards to comply with the C.B.I. initiative. Price increases not exceeding 5 per cent. are being made by the area boards in no case earlier than the anniversary of last year's increases. It is of course recognised that in the face of further cost increases during the past year these price increases will not be enough to prevent the industry being in deficit again this year.
In consequence, the industry's borrowing requirements since the order was made last March, raising the statutory limit to its present level, have been greater than expected, and it has become necessary to introduce new legislation rather sooner than I envisaged in the debate, if the risk of the Electricity Council's borrowing powers becoming exhausted within the next few months is to be avoided.

Mr. Alan Williams: Could the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of what the cost has been and is likely to be in this year to the Electricity Council to keep within the 5 per cent. limit?

Sir J. Eden: Offhand I could not do so, but if the information is available I shall certainly see that it is given either later in this debate or during the Committee stage. I take the point made by the hon. Member.
In Scotland, about which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development—who is to reply to this de-

bate—will give any further information that may be required, the pattern has been a little different. Further legislation was needed to increase the borrowing powers of the Scottish Boards in 1969. The Electricity (Scotland) Act, 1969, established the present limit of £800 million which took effect last August through the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order, 1971. These powers, as explained in the debate on the order, will also be exhausted sooner than expected for similar reasons and, although there is not the same urgency as with the Electricity Council, new powers are required in the present Session.
The Electricity Council and the Scottish boards have submitted estimates of their capital requirements, internal financing and borrowing requirements up to the end of March, 1978. In covering a period of seven years from the end of the last complete financial year—which is of course little over six years from now—the industry is following the pattern established in the 1963 Act. The estimates are set out in the Memorandum (Cmnd. 4877) which was published when the Bill was introduced, and are also given together with background material in the brochures to which I have already referred.
In the period from 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1978, the total capital requirements of the Electricity Council and boards are estimated at £4,900 million, of which £2,800 million is expected to be financed from internal sources, leaving a borrowing requirement of £2,100 million. The corresponding figures for the Scottish boards are: capital requirements £788 million, internal finance £286 million—not £296 million as stated in paragraph 5 of the White Paper through a printer's error—and borrowing requirements £502 million. In addition, the Council and the Scottish boards need to borrow £300 million and £36 million respectively to repay compensation stock and loans in 1973. In order to enable industries to meet all these borrowing requirements the statutory borrowing limits need to be raised to £6,500 million for the Electricity Council and £1,200 million for the Scottish boards.
I know that the House recognises that in attempting to look six years into the future the figures are inevitably subject to a number of uncertainties. There are


uncertainties about the rate of growth of demand for electricity and about the longer term trend of costs and prices.
In the face of these uncertainties, the estimates of borrowing requirements can be only tentative. The industry's capital expenditure programme is reviewed annually by the Government and firm approval given for the year following the review—though estimates for the ensuing four years are reviewed and are included in the annual White Paper on Public Expenditure. In raising the borrowing limits we are concerned only to provide for the legitimate borrowing requirements of the industry over the next few years. Great precision is not possible, nor is it necessary. The industries have made the best estimates they can and the Government accepts them as a reasonable basis for fixing new borrowing limits. The total amounts by which the previous statutory limits are now to be increased are very large: £2,100 million in England and Wales and £400 million in Scotland. But these full amounts do not immediately become available. Following the now well-established practice, interim limits are included in the Bill, which may not be exceeded without an order laid by the Secretary of State and subject to affirmative Resolution of the House. These will raise present limits by £800 million in England and Wales and £150 million in Scotland; and some £300 million of the former will be absorbed on the redemption next year of compensation stock which had not counted towards the limit. Thus, in England and Wales the effective interim increase in borrowing powers after allowing for re-financing of compensation stock is some £500 million, which should meet the industry's needs for two years or so. On present estimates, the House may be asked to approve a further increase above the interim limit at that time.
I now briefly turn to Clause 2 of the Bill which is to provide powers for the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury to make payments out of public funds to the Electricity Council and the Electricity boards in contribution towards the expenses of the capital projects which they are bringing forward.
This is an essential part in the exceptional measures which the Govern-

ment are taking to promote employment. As the House will recall, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on 23rd November last that the nationalised industries are making arrangements, at the request of the Government, to bring forward about £100 million of capital expenditure into the years 1972–73 and 1973–74. Of this sum about £60 million is attributable to electricity boards. It was expected that this would include expenditure involving additional costs, such as the extra payment of interest charges, and it was understood that compensatory payments would be made.
I am sure it is right that the extra costs consequent upon this exceptional acceleration of expenditure should fall upon the community as a whole rather than on the industry's consumers. I am therefore asking the House to provide discretionary powers for the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to make such payments up to a total of £25 million. This sum has been designed to cover all the expected claims for compensation from all the projects now being considered. Indeed it should suffice to cover the possibility of acceleration of some further minor projects; but it does not provide for another large project on the scale of the Ince power station. The actual compensation paid will depend not only on the capital expenditure advanced but also on the length of the period by which the projects, which vary widely in size and time scale, are brought forward.
The choice of Ince B, an oil-fired station, rather than a coal-fired or nuclear station, should not, of course, be taken as a sign of any broad decision about the choice of fuel for future station orders. As hon. Members will know, the relative merits of the available nuclear reactors which might be built in the United Kingdom are already under study by my officials. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to this in the debate last night. This is being done in association with the generating boards and United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and consultations have also taken place with the manufacturers. These studies which have certainly had full regard to developments in Europe are nearing completion, but so far they have not yet reached the point of Ministerial decision.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: One realises that these are vastly complex problems. I do not think any of us on this side of the House would want to come to a definite decision as to how the Vintner Committee should report, because these are very difficult matters. On the other hand, do the Government recognise that there is a very real problem in the supplying industry? It wants to know what its investment plans may cost. After all, the Vintner Committee has been studying this for some time.

Sir J. Eden: I am very well aware of the point made by the hon. Member and of course we are anxious that this study shall be brought forward to the point of decision as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman fairly recognises that these are extremely complex matters; major decisions are involved and inevitably they take a little time. I can assure him that we are pressing ahead with this as fast as we can.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: The House has in the past been subject to an impressed settlement on these matters. May we on this occasion have an assurance that there will be laid before the House a White Paper or explanatory memorandum which we may be able to debate, showing how the various considerations are arrived at in choosing a particular form of generation, coal-fired, oil-fired or nuclear fired?

Sir J. Eden: These are other matters which one has to take into account in assessing the relative merits of available fuels for the power stations. This will be the subject of normal Ministerial decision, as it has always been in the past. It will also be dependent on the views of the Central Electricity Generating Board which in the first place makes proposals about power stations, and these matters can be debated and discussed in the normal way. It would be most unfortunate in regard to the time of the House if every decision were to be the subject of a White Paper in advance.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The electricity industry has been in a straitjacket over its fuels for years. It burns about 73 million tons of coal per year. Does the Minister agree that flexibility is required, and could he say whether there is any possibility that the elec-

tricity industry will be able to burn gas as an alternative fuel?

Sir J. Eden: These are important and wide issues and these matters will be taken into account as the various power stations consents come forward.

Mr. Michael McGuire: An important principle is involved here and it particularly concerns miners' M.Ps. This involves capital investment and the efficacy of operation as between coal-fired stations and oil-fired or nuclear-fired stations. Has the Central Electricity Generating Board given the hon. Gentleman any figures showing how far it will be necessary to come to this House for further capital investment? What is the magnitude of the sums involved, since there has been a colossal failure following the tremendous capital investment in the nuclear-powered programme which is not working to anything like full capacity?

Sir J. Eden: The experience of the hoard in trying to get some of these major new plants in operation has had an effect on expected performance, but we are now talking about forecasting requirements for a period of six to seven years ahead. This is a different order of magnitude and is not affected by the sort of considerations advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
I am very much aware of the fact that we are facing enormous pressures of time in this debate and I hope the House will acquit me of any discourtesy if I truncate my remarks to enable other hon. Members to take part.
I turn briefly to Clause 3. This Clause is concerned with a transfer of property between electricity boards. This has nothing to do with the larger question of the general organisation of the industry. I do not anticipate any early statutory changes in that field. This is concerned with technical reorganisation. Hon. Members will recall that a similar provision was included in the Electricity Bill, 1970, which lapsed with the General Election. Transfers of property between boards are necessary from time to time in order to facilitate technical reorganization—for example, the transfer of the operation of the 132kV transmission network from the C.E.G.B. to the area boards. In such circumstances it may


be difficult to transfer all the property and other rights involved by ordinary instruments.
The transfer of the various property rights including wayleaves, some of which were acquired compulsorily, is a matter of considerable legal complexity and could best be effected by order under Section 19 of the Electricity Act, 1947, as amended. In its present form the powers of this Section would not be available in respect of property acquired other than by the vesting provisions of the Electricity Acts, 1947, and 1957, and the Electricity Re-organisation (Scotland) Act, 1954. In Clause 3 of the Bill we have therefore provided for the extension of the Secretary of State's powers to transfer property between boards to cover all property whenever and however acquired. This Amendment has been sought by the Electricity Council and the boards in England and Wales so that any necessary organisation will not be impeded by the exclusion of property acquired since the vesting date.
Clause 3 is not intended to facilitate a major reorganisation such as was proposed in the Bill introduced by the Labour Government in 1970. There is no immediate likelihood of any organisational change being proposed comparable to that measure. In the meantime, we shall encourage the greater cohesion in the industry, and to this end we have recently made a number of appointments which will ensure that the experience gained in generation is brought to distribution and vice versa.

Mr. Dalyell: Could the hon. Gentleman say what is meant by "greater cohesion in the industry"?

Sir J. Eden: I will, if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to. Most of those who have followed this industry closely will understand that in days gone by there was a tendency for generation to move in one direction and distribution in the other. Now, thanks to effective leadership given to the industry by those who at present are in charge of both distribution and generation, there is a greater readiness than ever to work together as a single industry. It is to ensure there is this sort of effective change of experience that we have been making a number of appointments to that end.
However, the Bill itself is not concerned with reorganisation. It is a short but important Bill and deals with money without which the industry would quickly be brought to a standstill. The industry in the past years has already shown its capacity to improve its organisation, strengthen its efficiency and increase its productivity in a way that is wholly commendable. I am sure I carry the whole House with me in saying that at every level there are to be found in the industry men of the highest calibre who have served it very well.

Mr. Peter Emery: Before my hon. Friend draws his remarks to a close, may I make one intervention in case I do not get an opportunity to do so a little later? The amount of money the House is being asked to provide must be tied up with the ability of the industry to make profits which, in turn, is tied up with the leadership, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which all hon. Members would wish to praise. Could my hon. Friend give any information about the fuels which might be used in the future? Could he say that he has not rejected for either of the two energy bodies the possibility of the use either of natural gas or Russian oil as a fuel, both of which would have allowed a considerable lowering of price in certain generation aspects?

Sir J. Eden: I am very much aware of the importance of the point put to me by my hon. Friend. I can give no answer other than that which I gave to the question when it was put to me earlier: namely, that decisions on the fuelling of power stations are taken when applications are brought forward. At that time every aspect of the situation is brought into account. There is the whole question of the availability of cheaper sources of fuel, which may be in gas, in oil, in Russian oil, or whatever it may be.

Mr. McGuire: Or British oil.

Sir J. Eden: There is also consideration of the social implications which may derive from any decisions which are taken affecting the coal industry. These matters have to be balanced and taken into account at that time.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Sir J. Eden: I hope that I have said enough to persuade the House that the Bill is necessary.

Mr. Emery: I am sorry, but—

Sir J. Eden: I am sorry. I ask the House to support the Bill.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: I am sorry that the Minister's speech and his hon. Friend's intervention concluded on a note of mutual regret. We can only hope that the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) will get an opportunity to confide to his Ministerial colleague and to the House what it was that so suddenly and perhaps belatedly oppressed his soul. We are all eager to hear him.
The Minister concluded by saying that the future of the industry depended on the capital that is put at its disposal, the borrowing powers and the financial arrangements which he proposes to make. But it is a little odd that no mention has been made of the coal strike. It seems to me that in assessing the financial requirements of the electricity boards we need to know what prospect the industry has if what must be for it a disastrous strike continues to the point of interrupting its capacity to supply the public.
We should not forget that three-quarters of the energy for the generation of electricity comes from coal. Here we are, in the fourth week of a coal strike, talking about the electricity boards and the industry's prospects yet absolutely ignoring the development of a situation in which stocks of coal are being run down and, within a relatively short time, if the strike continues, the industry being in a state of near paralysis with disastrous effects on the rest of the country.
I am bound to demand in this debate that the Minister responsible for both the coal and electricity industries at least stops pretending that he has no responsibility for taking positive and constructive action to bring the strike to an end. The House ought, in discussing the Bill, to insist that the Minister discontinues his disingenuous attitude in pretending that the dispute is between the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers and the mineworkers themselves and that he is, as it were, the impartial, detached referee.
The miners know that the Minister is responsible for some measure of control over the offers being made by the Coal Board. He is, indeed, the decisive factor in the negotiations. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that. We protest against the shabby pretence by the hon. Gentleman that it is not his responsibility to take a hand in the negotiations. He will inevitably take a very big hand in the negotiations, and I make no complaint about that. I complain about his pretending that he is not a party to the dispute. He is showing the miners that he has no understanding of their grievances and case and is therefore making it impossible for any credible negotiations to get under way.
I beg the Minister to go back to his Department, relate what is happening in the coal industry to the prospects of the electricity industry, and, indeed, of the whole of British industry, and stand up like a man and acknowledge that he is the decisive force in any negotiations with the miners. He ought to get off his high horse and stop pretending that this is a matter between the Coal Board and the mineworkers. The hon. Gentleman is the most important party to any of these negotiations. If they are stalemated without any effort on his part to break the stalemate, he must take responsibility for what occurs, particularly in the power industry, in the not too distant future.

Mr. Thomas Cox: While agreeing with the points made by my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to incorporate in his remarks the possibility that next week there might be a work-to-rule within the electricity supply industry? Certainly the union leadership within that industry is looking for a lead from the Minister. Unless that lead is forthcoming, there may be not only the damaging strike of the miners but a strike within the electricity supply industry.

Mr. Lever: I have no wish to impede any reasonable efforts on the part of the Government, although I have criticisms about the selective application of those efforts to the nationalised industries in their struggle to keep down inflation. We have already had our tease on the election braggadocio about bringing down prices "at a stroke". We know that the Government have the serious task, not


that anyone pretended to be able to accomplish it overnight, of dealing with inflationary problems. Although I have criticisms which are not relevant to this debate about how the Government have undertaken that task, I do not want any words of mine to damage any efforts which are reasonably and fairly made to avoid inflationary settlements.
If the Minister wants fair dealing between the men and the great industries which they serve, to which they have deep attachment in which they are aware that their future lies, he must behave in a candid, open and honourable way. I do not regard it as behaviour calculated to win the confidence of the workpeople in these great nationalised industries when the Minister stays behind the scenes as the decisive voice in any wage negotiations but purports in public to be disinterested. I repeat, there is no shame that he has a decisive part in these matters. He must, however, face the workpeople and their representatives, the trade unions, whether in the coal or the power industry, like a man and negotiate with them. He must not pretend to the workpeople that powerless nationalised boards are holding up settlement by being rigid or digging themselves in at a particular point. We know that it is not the boards but the Government who are responsible for any rigidity or failure to keep the discussions going or any dilatoriness in showing the necessary flexibility.
If the Minister wants relations of a constructive kind with the workpeople and their representatives, his first duty is to be candid with them, because lack of candour or anything which smacks of double dealing will inflame the situation and make settlement more difficult.
I have said that because I think we are moving into a critical situation. It is a matter of great urgency that the Department which is responsible for the coal industry and for our electricity supplies should deal with the unions in those industries at least with the maximum candour, expedition and sense of willingness to talk, to negotiate, to be reasonable and to seek to understand their point of view, even if the Department cannot always go along with it.
I want to deal with one or two aspects of the Bill, which is not in itself contentious.

Sir G. Nabarro: It is contentious.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) says that it is contentious. Almost anything is contentious when it comes to the notice of the hon. Member. But I must leave him to such controversies as he wishes to raise with the Minister. I want to deal with certain particular points. If I do not cover every detail, I can exculpate myself on two grounds. First, unlike the hon. Member, I regard the Bill as largely uncontentious; and secondly, my hon. Friend who will conclude the debate will doubtless repair any gaps in my speech.
I want to concentrate on the following points. First, the Government are here providing a very substantial sum to make good to the electricity boards the extra cost of advancing capital expenditure. I deal with the first point of principle. The Government are saying, "We are asking you to act against commercial purpose and to act for social advantage, and we will meet the cost from the Exchequer, not from the price of electricity." I wholly applaud that principle of distinguishing social purpose from commercial purpose. It is necessary in order to keep the boards clear of a fatalistic attitude that it is no use looking at commercial practice if every so often the Government ask the boards to depart from it at the Government's expense or at the expense of price.

Mr. Skeet: Do not take it too far.

Mr. Lever: The principle is absolutely sound. My objection is to the areas in which it is most operated. I am very troubled about the area in which it will operate. If one has to advance capital programmes on non-commercial grounds, ex hypothesi the thing is a wasteful operation but for the need to give employment it is urgently required. I note that the Minister is frowning with some lack of understanding of my point. If one has to pay the electricity boards to do this, to make good losses that the industry suffers because capital invesment is being asked from it and not decided by commercial principle—that is to say, it is being pushed ahead before it is really needed—

Sir J. Eden: Not quite. The point is that almost certainly there would have been, in due course of time, a power


station but it might not have come as it has come. Bringing it forward earlier means that there are extra costs—not losses—incurred and it is to compensate for those that extra provision is being made.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman has rephrased what I have been saying. Extra costs and losses are precisely the same thing—losses compared with not bringing it forward. That is what I am referring to. If one brings forward a capital project in an untimely way, not linked with one's original planning, there is a loss compared with what would have been the case if one had not brought it forward.
I mentioned my next point during the main debate on our economic situation and all I got in response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and another member of the Cabinet was an attempt to make stupid party political points that were of no value even for party political purposes and even more futile for economic purposes. They asked whether we were trying to snatch work from the hands of the unemployed whom they were seeking to benefit by this Bill. I said then, and I repeat now, that in the present situation, in which the Government's mismanagement has led us to a figure of over 1 million unemployed, if anything could advance useful work or create useful demand which will reduce that unemployment in the near future, I should be in favour of doing that. I mentioned the specific things that I would do to achieve that.
The trouble about the proposals of the Government in their panic is that, first, they are the wrong way of supporting employment and, second, they will not support employment at the relevant time. I was asked which of the Government's projects I would not support. I said that I would not support any advancing of capital programmes which would not have an effect in the coming months, and I challenged the Government to tell us of one of these capital projects which was to come forward in the relevant 12–18 months about which we are thinking. The capital programmes here are being pushed forward into 1972–73 and 1973–74 mainly, as I understand from the hon. Gentleman, so that there is a reasonable

expectation that they should be in full swing at a point of time when the Government's problem may very well be that they have excessive demand on their hands. Therefore, they will have to hold back something else at that time because they have, as a matter of political panic, pushed forward the programmes of the electricity industry and many others at public expense—quite rightly, if it is to be done at all. But it is very like the old proverb, "If you do not know where you are going, any road will do".
The Government have run out of sensible and reasonable economic strategy, so they have to look as if they are doing something. They have ordered power stations for 1973–74 and 1974–75 that probably are not wanted for years ahead and at any rate, according to the best calculations of the boards, can be put into those years only at a cost of £25 million, an extra cost which the Government are to make good. I object to that. We have to be very careful before we give the Government a blank cheque for an ostensibly noble purpose but one which will not deliver the goods within a relevant time.
If the Government want to employ £25 million so as to produce an immediate employment response, they would do better by giving it to those in urgent need at present, such as the old-age pensioners and the sick, to create additional demand. There is nothing wrong with that when there is so much unemployment of men and resources at present. This proposal, however, is fudging the issue at considerable expense and it will not work in the relevant period of time. It may even work to our disadvantage if the Government's reflationary measures are as effective as they claim they will be.
Another objection is that if we were in government I should not have asked private enterprise to gear its capital programmes, which in any case are complex and difficult in their arrangement, to sudden requests from the Government to push them forward or hold them back because of the general state of the economy. Capital programmes are the last thing that should be used for these short-term purposes. Capital programmes, especially in an industry such as electricity, need to be thought out and planned long ahead and should relate to


the best judgment that can be made about the needs of this power industry. Even when capital programmes are not disturbed, we have not had anything like perfection in the deployment of capital programmes in this industry. To ask the industry to move forward its plans in this way cannot be calculated to bring order and the best results.
No industry should have its major capital programmes disturbed, with a pretended flexibility which in the nature of things it cannot have, by the Government seeking to move the programmes forward or backward at short notice. They are subject to long-term planning, and long-term pressures should be brought if it is felt that too little capital investment is being made. One can then take the initiative to push in the direction of more capital over a proper time scale related to economic efficiency. If one wants to pull capital back, the same principle applies.
We do not want this stop-go policy. This is part of the "go" which seems so attractive when it is undertaken and which, if it is done in this way, always leads to a "stop." The sane policy of capital investment must be one in which the programmes are tailored to the needs of the industry. When the capital investment is as vast as it is in this industry, it is particularly important that it should he sensibly undertaken. This industry does not yet have any concept of its fuel plans in its capital programme. This is an odd moment at which to announce the pushing forward of a capital programme which would not otherwise have been undertaken.
Until one knows what fuel will be used, one cannot see how the industry can best serve the national interest in creating employment. For example, what is the good of closing a pit, putting men out of work in the coalfields and then, when faced with swollen unemployment figures, rushing forward with cheques saying, "Build us an extra nuclear power station quicker than you would have done"? What on earth is the good of planning of that kind? Before the capital programme is tampered with in this way, the least we should know is that the capital programme has been soundly constructed and proper judgments made.
I will not go on at length about the choice of fuels, but I have grave anxieties as to the past and deep nervousness as to the future on this question. I do not think, for example, that the nation would have authorised the vast expenditure on nuclear power stations that has been undertaken had it known that several years after this huge expenditure had been incurred the nation could not claim that it had had any benefit from these vast expenditures. The pie was to be much lower in the sky when these vast expenditures were authorised, and the special pleaders will tell us that in the 1980s or 1990s—and I suppose by 1980 we shall be told that it will be the next century—the nation will reap rich rewards from this foresight of spending much-needed resources on vast experimental nuclear stations, perhaps without adequate ability by informed public opinion to examine and control those plans. I am always terrified when a small group which alone has the available details on which to judge makes decisions which are vastly more important than many of the decisions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. We are talking of hundreds of millions of pounds a year that has been spent on these stations and we should know what benefit we have gained.
What is the available capacity in this country at the moment compared with five years ago? With these huge expenditures our available capacity should be largely enhanced, but it is not as far as I know. It has been said that capacity is little more than it was five years ago. It has been said that nuclear power stations are running 30 per cent. under their predicted capacity. This is a serious shortfall and we should be told more about it. 
I hope that nobody deceives himself that in a monopoly industry, which has monopoly rights to price electricity, earnings on capital employed are a relevant indicator of achievement. They are not relevant. One has to see what happens in other industries in other countries compared with what we have achieved—

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Might I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? There are evidently to be four Front Bench speeches in a debate lasting for two hours and 20 minutes. Are the Front Benches to be called on to wind


up at nine o'clock and, if so, will all the back benchers who are sitting here waiting to speak be excluded from the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Gentleman is anticipating what I intended to say to the House when the right hon. Gentleman had finished his speech. The ordinary customs and traditions of the House will be upheld, and I shall rely on hon. Members to be as helpful as they can.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South would be the last whose anxiety to be called would trouble me unduly in making the points which I have to make. I have a certain responsibility which I must discharge as briefly as I can.
My final point, which I should have finished if the hon. Gentleman had not been on his feet, is that the Minister has shown that he is willing to spend public money to stimulate employment. There is nowhere safer from an economic point of view, nowhere more desirable from a moral and human point of view, to stimulate employment than in the regions of high unemployment. May I suggest to him that instead of dickering with the capital programme of the electricity industry, in paying out money he ought to explore the possibility of providing subsidised energy in the areas of high unemployment to stimulate production in those areas?
I do not want to go on any longer. There are some hon. Members other than the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South whom I and, I am sure, the House are anxious to hear. I therefore conclude by urging the Minister to give attention to the points which have been raised and not to minimise the gravity of my anxieties as I have raised them because we do not intend to force a vote on the Bill.

Mr. Skeet: Would the right hon. Gentleman perhaps consider remitting value-added tax which is imposed on coal in certain regional areas to carry out the proposals he has in mind?

Mr. Lever: I have an entirely open mind which would favour any sensible action by the Government which would give immediate stimulation to the indus-

tries particularly in the areas of high unemployment. There it can be safely done; there we need not worry about the Government's story that there is enough in the pipeline and if there were any more it would be overheated—although the day when it will be overheated in the development areas of Wales and Scotland, whatever the Government do, is, I fear, a long way off. I therefore urge the Government to pay attention to a more realistic use of their power for social purposes than so far has been evident.

8.38 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: None would dispute that we have to finance the nationalised industries and vote them new capital sums from time to time, but the very scale of the sums involved in this Bill has caused me a great deal of concern in a period when we are passing through grave and acute inflation.
For example, the capital expenditure of the boards in England and Wales under this Bill is to have the authorised limit increased from £4,400 million to £5,200 million and to £6,500 million, in certain circumstances and in Scotland from £800 million to £950 million and, in certain circumstances, running up to £1,200 million.
For the purpose of my point the exact sum of money is not material. The advances are enormous, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) was exactly right when he said that they would boggle the imagination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who does not deal in a single Budget with such advances of sums he budgets for—on comparable scales. I am not prepared to pass these sums through this evening in a debate of less than a couple of hours. I shall seek to amend the Bill in Committee, thereby enabling a full debate to take place, and in the interests of the coal mining industry particularly.
It is crass stupidity for Government policy to state that they cannot pronounce until the moment before a power station commences building what sort of fuel it will use. The position of the coal industry is this: at present there are approximately 145 million tons of coal produced in this country per annum. Out


of that about 50 per cent., or about 70 million tons, are used for electricity generation. The thermal efficiency with which coal is burned is not particularly high, and I shall deal with that point, briefly, in a moment. But I see no possibility at all of the National Coal Board planning intelligently its production schedules over eight or ten years ahead, including the sinking of new pits as necessary and major reconstruction of old pits, when it cannot be told by its largest consumer, who takes one-half of the whole of its output, namely, the electricity industry, how much coal the electricity industry is budgeting to consume, and how much oil, and how much nuclear power. I intend to say no more on that point tonight, other than that it is crass stupidity for the Government to pronounce such words and call them a policy.
My second point is that we should be examining in the House, and certainly I shall seek to examine in Committee, the thermal efficiency with which the fuel is burned in the power stations. Vast quantities of fuel are consumed. I will not weary the House by reading out the details they are all to be found on page 31, Chapter 4, of the last Annual Report and Accounts of the Electricity Council. On the same page, in paragraph 86, we read:
The average thermal efficiency of generation in the Board's coal and oil-fired stations during the year was 28·4 per cent. compared with 28·3 per cent. for the previous year.
We invested £700 million to secure a 0·1 of 1 per cent. advance in thermal efficiency. I wonder why my hon. Friend the Minister did not refer to thermal efficiency, the cardinal and critical factor in assessing the efficiency with which capital is being employed in the most capital-intensive of all British industries. Again, I shall raise the matter in Committee. The Committee will be taken on the Floor of the House. We have not had a full-scale electricity debate here for a very long time. As the Bill impinges on the fortunes of both the coal industry and our major energy industry, the electricity industry, we should have a major debate, and I shall ask the Whips to put on one side a full day.

Mr. McGuire: Tomorrow.

Sir G. Nabarro: No. That is too soon.
I shall ask for a day so that we can explore the efficiency with which those large sums of money are being employed.
I shall make my third point very shortly. I rarely find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Cheetham, but he was certainly right this evening. I came to the House expecting to hear a pronouncement about the coal stocks at the power stations, expecting to learn how soon electricity supplies would fade or be shed because of coal supplies running out in the event of the miners' strike continuing for two, three or four weeks longer. I have heard not a word about coal stocks. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me in winding up whether we have four weeks' or five weeks' coal stocks left. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Two weeks'."] I cannot obtain a reliable figure. I hope that my hon. Friend will give me it when he winds up, as well as saying something about the very difficult dispute in the electricity supply industry, which may lead to working to rule. We all recall the last time that happened. I came here on New Year's Day, 1971, and found the Palace of Westminster blacked out. Cold, hungry, and miserable I was, without any electricity supplies, and I do not want a recurrence.
That is all I have to say about the industry generally. I sought the advice of the learned Clerks at the Table to make sure that I should be in order in raising the matter to which I now turn, the suicide of Mrs. Ann Hemmingway in Coventry, on account of her electricity bill being deliberately inflated by a junior clerk in the East Midlands Electricity Board, deliberately inflated—let someone deny it—from the normal figure of £1 to £18·50. The old lady was so worried that she took her life. The East Midlands Board has defended the practice, and says that it will continue it. I quote from my favourite newspaper, the Worcester Evening News, in which I stigmatised the practice by saying on 13th January:
It is simply monstrous that a public corporation can hound a woman to her death on account of a few pounds for her electricity bill.
I asked a Parliamentary Question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of


State for Trade and Industry in the following terms:
…having regard to the suicide of a lady in Coventry, who received a bill for electricity supplies, inflated by the electricity board to draw attention to her overdue account, whether he will issue a general direction to electricity boards to cease such practices forthwith.
Although my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry expressed deep sympathy—indeed, he could do no less—he has not put a stop to the practices. He is talking, but he has not put a stop to them. He replied:
The East Midlands Board is investigating the case and will be submitting a report to me. Also, the East Midlands Consultative Council has confirmed that, as provided for in the statutory procedures, it is discussing with the board the problems arising from estimated accounts. It is open to them to make representations to the Electricity Council and to me. Given the statutory procedures applicable, I doubt whether a direction would he appropriate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 14–15.]
I castigate my hon. Friend. A direction is exactly appropriate. Since that Answer was given, the East Midlands Board has defiantly stated that it will continue the practice. Other boards have said that they will continue the practice. The chairman of the London Electricity Board has sent me a personal note saying that his board "have never indulged in this practice." If the London Electricity Board need not indulge in the practice, why need the East Midlands or the Midland Electricity Boards indulge in it.
In any event, it is entirely unnecessary. The recourse is simple. I never ask a question unless I know the answer, and I always know the answer to any question involving electricity appliances. All that it is necessary to do is to require by Statute that electricity meters are without, not within, domestic hereditaments in order that the meter reader may always secure access to the meter.
In Gloucester—I shall not advertise the firm other than by naming it—there is a firm called Permali Limited manufacturing gas and electricity meter cases which are readable from the outside of homes. None of this trouble with old ladies committing suicide would ever take place, and enormous savings would occur were all gas and electricity meters without hereditaments and not within.
I pursue my hon. Friend on this matter because it is one of great public concern. I may tell the House that I received a modest 250 letters after my Parliamentary Question about the old lady in Coventry. That was not as many letters as I have received recently about my traffic problems, but it is still a substantial number. On Monday next, 7th February, when my hon. Friend answers another Parliamentary Question of mine, I hope that he will not equivocate or procrastinate or in other ways evade the very important principle that it raises. I will ask the Secretary of State next Monday:
…following the suicide of Mrs. Ann Hemmingway at Coventry several weeks ago due to an inflated electricity bill, submitted by the East Midlands Electricity Board, and his subsequent undertaking to discuss with the Electricity Council and other interested bodies the practice of submitting estimated accounts, what has been the outcome of his talks; and whether he will make a statement on his future policy.
I want to prevent other old ladies committing suicide on acount of anxieties arising from the bullying and tyrannical behaviour of monopoly, nationalised boards, behaviour for which they ought to be condemned by every hon. Member.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I have served in the House for quite a time with the hon. Member for Worcester—

Sir G. Nabarro: Worcestershire, South.

Mr. Palmer: I am sorry. I thought that the hon. Gentleman expanded over the whole of Worcestershire. I was going on to say that while some of us may doubt his economics, no one would doubt his humanity. As one who has had a long connection with the electricity supply industry, I agree with what he has said about this practice of over-estimating meter readings. I can see no reason for doing so even if from time to time meter readings have to be estimated. They should be pitched on the side of underestimation.
I have no objection to Clause 2 of the Bill which will make it possible to advance projects. The extra cost will be paid out of public funds and I advocated such a course some while ago. As the Minister on that occasion gave me a somewhat dusty answer I am glad to


see the conversion which the Bill represents.
What particular projects are now to be brought forward and how many jobs? We have not had a great deal of detail. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Ince and I understand that contracts have been placed or are about to be placed for the Isle of Grain which is also an oil-fired power station. How far will that station now be advanced? What further projects are in mind? There should be a new coal-fired power station. Also I should like to see Sizewell B nuclear power station being allowed to proceed. Rightly or wrongly there is vast national investment in nuclear power, public and private.
I have been long an advocate of one design and construction company for nuclear plant and it may be that financial circumstances in the industry will very soon bring that about, at least I hope so. The big issue is which reactor type is to be developed before the fast breeder reactor is ready? The hon. Gentleman's answer about the pace of the Vintner investigation was unsatisfactory. It has had a long time and he should jog it to completion. If we cannot make decisions faster than this we will never keep ahead in the world of accelerating technology.
We should be more enterprising in the selection of reactor types. The C.E.G.B. should consider the claims of the steam generating heavy water reactor because it has considerable export potential. I am certainly now doubtful about the H.T.R. Maybe we should stick to the A.G.R. though we have yet to see an advanced gas-cooled reactor actually working. Will the extra money now available be used for further reactor development, particularly of the steam generating heavy water reactor? I suggest that the Government look again at the suggestion of the Select Committee on Science and Technology when we said that to save money and time, the prototype stage of a reactor should be on the electricity supply system and that any loss which the system might incur in trying out an otherwise untried reactor should be made good out of
public funds. I understand that this system is now being operated in the German supply undertakings.
As I argued in the debate on the Gas Bill last Thursday, it is highly undesirable to have a gigantic centralised corporation for the bringing in of natural gas, for wholesale and for retail distribution. This Gas Bill has been a triumph for the gas men, but, speaking with my admitted electricity bias, it fills me with foreboding for the fuel and power scene generally.
There is always a danger when talking of fuel and power matters for one always to apply what is true in one country to the circumstances of another. Unlike America, here in Britain we have a reasonably temperate climate and there is a great deal to be said for using some natural gas for power stations linked with pulverised coal. The advantages of natural gas would then be taken down through the power supply system without all the costs of conversion now being incurred in carrying through the retail use of natural gas.
As for staff morale in the industry, as the House knows, I have had long connection with electricity supply as a power engineer and I am in close contact with all grades of staff. One does not wish to say anything which is exaggerated, but staff morale in electricity supply is at a low ebb. One factor is the way in which the staffs have been absurdly run down by the combined action of pay and productivity schemes and the operations of management consultants, some of whom have left a trail of disorganisation and depression wherever they have operated. The sooner some management consultants are cleared out of British industry the better.
It is remarkable that the electricity supply industry, which once prided itself on giving a 24-hour service to the community, had its first ever major dispute just over a year ago after a decade of attempted productivity bargaining. In spite of all that has been tried wages have in real terms fallen back against other industries.
The renewed dispute is now at a delicate stage and I do not want to say anything which might prejudice matters. The industrial staff have been subjected to excessive productivity bargaining and differentials have narrowed for the staff grades. Often they have been the victims of the management consultants about whom I spoke.
The top salaries for chairmen in the nationalised industries were advanced greatly, and I make no complaint about that, because I have always been an advocate of the rate for the job. Provided tax is properly paid, I see no reason why they should not get those large sums. However, those top salary increases have not filtered down through the staff structure generally and the result is that pay differentials throughout the industry have worsened.
It appears that the industry is now required, because of this Measure, to make a sudden effort to relieve unemployment generally, though as my right hon. Friend pointed out, this will be somewhat slow acting in bringing relief. The principle, however, is sound, but it cannot be done in a hurry. If the electricity staffs are run down in the way they have been run down in the past, it will not be possible for them to be built up quickly. Nor will the best people come forward if their morale has been depressed and their sense of achievement blunted by external factors.
A depressing external factor has been the way in which the industry has been forced into the red in its trading account under the present Government, for the first time since nationalisation. There was a loss of £56 million last year. There are several reasons for this. One is that the demand for electricity has slackened because of the sluggish economy. This takes the heart out of people used to working in an expanding industry. For this, the Government must take the responsibility, because they manage, or mismanage, the economy.
Then, for three years, prices were held steady, and some boards even made a reduction. Now, however, there have been higher fuel charges and increases have become inevitable, but the Government have artificially limited them. Once again, the Government must take responsibility. It is no good, as Carlyle said somewhere, kicking a man into a ditch and then blaming him for not being able to climb out. That will be the position of the electricity supply industry if present policies are persisted in for too long.
The financial result is that the industry's net return has gone down to just over 4

per cent. With a fair field and no favour, it could be 7 or 8 per cent. I hope that the industry will not be blamed for this trading result; the fault lies with the Government.
No one can say that this industry is not efficient in the use of manpower. The number of employees per megawatt of output capacity dropped from 6·9 in 1962 to 3·8 in 1971, according to the last report of the Electricity Council. It has nearly halved in a decade—an outstanding record of improved productivity.
I should like to know the Minister's future legislative intentions. Is it the parliamentary timetable which is now holding back a Bill to make structural changes in the industry, or have the Government abandoned this intention? In view of what is proposed for the gas industry, I should be interested to know whether there is to be a parallel Bill for the electricity supply industry?
Have hon. Members opposite, particularly the Minister for Industry, cured themselves of the delusion that something will be gained for the public by making over appliance selling and contracting to private interests? My information is that these hiving off proposals have had a poor reception from the electricity boards themselves. The trade unions are openly against any change, as are the electrical equipment manufacturers, in the main. If it is intended to persist with these proposals for giving away profitable ancillary activities, the Government are in a minority of opinion.
Showrooms and consumer services were an integral part of this business long before nationalisation. To talk of them as just activities on the circumference is absurd. Utilisation completes the natural process chain of generation, transmission and distribution. That has been the evolution of the industry and it is no good, as is often done, making comparisons with industries which have not had the same evolution. Any present change would be wasteful and destructive of staff morale as I have said before.
I believe that the consumers, by and large, would be against it. It would be interesting if some of the boards were bold enough on their own account, even if it did not meet with Government approval, to hold an opinion poll among their consumers.
My final two questions then to the Minister are, first, do the Government propose to bring in structural changes in the industry, and, secondly, have they dropped those so-called "hiving off" proposals?

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: The House recognises the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) as one of the great experts on the electricity industry. I begin, as I always do in a debate on power, by declaring an interest in one aspect. I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely about some of the problems which management consultant surveys have brought to the nationalised industries. The electricity industry is suffering after such a report. There have been too many disastrous changes of procurement policy. Instead of there being a centralised and efficient organisation, such as that brought about by Mr. Derek Rayner in the Ministry of Defence and those which apply in the coal and gas industries, the Electricity Council has broken up its central purchasing structure in the Central Electricity Generating Board. It has diversified it into nonfunctional factors, often reporting to engineers who know nothing of procurement and purchasing. This is detrimental to the whole industry. I had not intended to introduce that aspect. I do so to further the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central.
My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised that, having been stimulated by not getting as good a reply to one of my questions as I expected, I find Clause 1 unacceptable. If nothing else, I believe that consistency has some virtue. The most boorish thing in this House is to quote from one's own speeches and I shall not do so, but perhaps I might paraphrase. I recall that, when my hon. Friend and I sat on the Front Bench opposite in debates on orders increasing the borrowing powers of the electricity and gas industries, we complained about proposed increases which amounted to only one-third of those figures. Yet this Bill increases the borrowing powers for the Electricity Council and hoards by 48 per cent. in England and Wales and by 50 per cent. for the Scottish electricity boards.
It is all very well for my hon. Friend to talk about a figure of £5,200 million

"or such greater sum" not exceeding another figure. But the lower figure is always forgotten. It is always the sum that was not to be exceeded which becomes the figure reached. Originally the borrowing power was raised to £3,300 million and up to a maximum of £4,400 million—and the £3,300 million figure was forgotten. The industry got to the maximum of £4,400 million.
Now the Government are asking for an increase from £4,400 million to £6,500 million in one case and from £800 million to £1,200 million in the other case. These are vast increases in one bite. The limit is too high in terms of management efficiency. It is too much in one tranche. As I said in opposition, less money should be allowed in one go as a matter of pure business economics. When an industry has such huge borrowing powers allowed to it, its overall efficiency is nothing like as keen as it would be if the limit was lower. I do not seek to deprive the nationalised industries of money but when they need it they should come back to the House for approval.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the fuel feedstock situation in the electricity industry. I asked my hon. Friend if he had refused an application for the use of either natural gas or Russian oil. This cheap feedstock might have been available. I did not get a reply other than that this matter was considered on its merits at every application. I do not mind what the Minister's decision was. If the decision was to reject either of these propositions it may well have been for social reasons or to deal beneficially with the coal industry, but let us say so and not hide the facts. I can only interpret from his statement that the Minister in fact turned down such applications because, if he had not done so, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for a negative reply to have been given to me.
It is of the utmost importance that this matter should not be dealt with on an ad hoc basis one station at a time. That gives neither reasonable efficiency to the coal industry nor the opportunity for forward planning. There cannot be any necessary forward planning for people providing equipment for the industry. I think this is the wrong type of judgment. The Government ought to make the decision for the next two or


three stations saying which fuel should be used and not deal with it on an ad hoc basis one station at a time.
If for the same reason it is necessary to continue with coal, the most expensive feedstock to the electricity industry, I have always argued that that ought to be dealt with not by the electricity industry having to meet the social cost but by the social cost being separately accounted by the Government, to meet this as a cost which is known and able to be understood by everyone as a means of ensuring that the coal industry shall be kept in being, that employment shall be safeguarded and that capital assets are used and the whole of the town structures kept viable in these areas. There is nothing wrong in making these decisions, but let us not hide the social and financial factors in a Bill dealing with increased costs in which no one is able to adjudicate about how much is social cost and how much is not.
There has been reference during the debate to the position of the electricity industry in relation to the coal industry. It may not be popular to say this but I do not believe that any section of society, whoever it may comprise—doctors, nurses, postmen or miners—has the right to hold the rest of society to ransom. I do not consider that to be equitable or correct. I therefore say that if there is necessity for the Central Electricity Generating Board or the area boards to—

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Emery: No, I will not give way, because five or six more hon. Members want to speak in this debate and if I gave way I would add five or six minutes to my speech by answering a question whereas I want to finish on the point I am making. If there has to be load-shedding or blackouts by the electricity industry, that load-shedding or those blackouts should be directed to the coal-mining areas so that those bringing about trouble should realise the factors which are involved.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Scandalous!

Mr. Emery: This may not be popular, but quite a lot of people believe that

those sections of society which bring hardship to society should be the first to realise what is the effect of their actions.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is quite right to say that his remarks will be unpopular. I thought what he said was also very stupid, and I wonder whether he would have said that had he come from the north of England, from Wales or from Scotland and had seen It first hand that on-cost workers in the coal fields were earning £13, £14, £15 per week in take-home pay.

Mr. Emery: I probably know these matters just as well as do other hon. Members.

Mr. Dalyell: There are others who have more authority to speak about the mining industry than I have, so I will leave that matter.
I should like to concentrate on the Vintner Committee and would ask why the Committee has taken so long to report. We are at least due for an explanation. What consideration is being given to the total resources problem with which the Minister is now faced? I speak as one who wants to see coal develop and increase in use together with a flat-out attempt to go as fast as possible in nuclear fuel.
All the recent literature is very convincing that oil and natural gas are both rare resources. We hope the Government will come forward with some kind of coherent plan and not an "itsy-bitsy" solution to the problem of a total fuel policy. I should like to ask about the advanced gas cooled reactor. May we be told how deep is the trouble it has run into? Since we have not been able to sell any abroad, I should have thought that there was nothing to be lost in being frank with the House of Commons, notwithstanding commercial considerations.
Is it, I wonder, true that we should go ahead with the steam generated heavy water reactor? All the evidence which came before the Committee on which I had the honour to serve under my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr Palmer) added up to a British plan to go ahead with the S.G.H.W.R. until such time as the fast reactors came in.


It is vital for our exports, and if we are to consider potential exports the system must surely be something we use ourselves. How can we go to a prospective importing country and say, "We have a wonderful system, but our Government do not back it. We do not use it ourselves?"
Mr. Alvin Weinberg, who is head of the Oakridge National Laboratory, has made a clear case for a standardised nuclear fuel. For all the talk of a shortage of resources in the 1990s and up to the turn of the century, there is surely a considerable argument for going ahead with a whole series of nuclear paths along the lines suggested by Weinberg. Regardless of whether one is pro- or anti-Common Market surely this should be done on a European basis. The sooner we get our European discussions right the better.
I wish to ask the Minister two specific questions. First, what is the future of Skateness in the north of Scotland? Perhaps the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will say something about this in his reply. Secondly, the Minister said that it cost a good deal more to bring a power station forward granted a normal rate of inflation. I do not believe it, and it is up to the Government if they really take that view to provide evidence.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: I shall be very brief in my remarks because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. The main provision of the Bill so far as I am concerned is Clause 2 which is related to the encouragement of employment. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said, we have not heard from the Minister how many jobs are to be created. I would suggest that on a short-term basis there could be a fair number of jobs on the construction side in different parts of the country. It is surely this aspect with which we should concern ourselves in the present situation. But in view of modern developments which have taken place, the number of permanent jobs which would exist as a result of these proposals would be small.
I turn briefly to the question of redundancy within the electricity supply industry. Several comments have been made

about the utter confusion of certain aspects of policy in the industry. I suggest that redundancy is a classic example. Whereas we are debating the possibility of extra job opportunities in the industry, at the same time we are going through a period when forced redundancy is about to take place within the industry.
Let us consider the history of redundancy in the industry. First, there was voluntary redundancy. Many men in their late fifties thought that this would be a good opportunity to get out of the industry, accept the payments that were to be offered, and find some other job for the rest of their working lives until of pensionable age. Many men applied for voluntary redundancy. But the board apparently panicked and stopped voluntary redundancy, because it realised that men were not coming into the industry in view of the low wage incentives which were being paid.
Then again forced redundancy was introduced. I understand that it is about to take place within the industry now. One can therefore understand the deep concern of men being forced out of their jobs, many of whom have spent their whole working lives in the industry—I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is a great degree of loyalty in the industry because of the obligations that the men feel they have to the general public—when they find that the jobs are not disappearing as such, but are being taken over by contract labouring firms, many of which pay far higher salaries to their workers than the men who were formerly doing the jobs were being paid.
In addition—this is a matter I specifically ask the Minister to try to answer now or in Committee—there is deep concern within the industry about a matter which certainly exists within the building industry; namely, the lump system. There is concern in the electricity supply industry whether some of these contracting firms which come in are following a similar system. I suggest that there is clear evidence that many of these firms engage self-employed men for whom they have no obligation for tax or social service commitments. This system should be stamped out as soon as possible.
I have made my point that there is great concern about redundancy. I am


sure that the whole country hopes, as I have no doubt the leaders of the unions representing men in the electricity supply industry hope, that, before next Monday, there will be an agreed solution to the wage negotiations. I hope that we will get back to stability within the industry. Unless the Minister gives a great deal of consideration to the question of redundancy and the issues which flow from it, although we might settle the present problem, I believe that we shall be confronted with many other issues in the coming years which will be detrimental not only to the electricity supply industry, but to the country as a whole. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to this matter.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Speaking in very rapid shorthand, I thought that to some extent the Minister did a service to the House when he praised the electricity industry. Conversely, however, he did a great disservice to the House and, indeed, to the Government when he refrained from making any comment about the effect that the miners' strike would have on the electricity industry. One does not need to be an accountant to realise that the figures proposed in the Bill must be out of date if the Government maintain their pigheaded attitude in trying to settle the miners' strike.
Before coming to the House I received certain information. The Minister must also have this information. Being the chairman of the miners' parliamentary group, I get information about what is happening. I know what will happen this week. There will be power cuts and the position in the power stations will get worse and worse. Yet the Minister presents a Bill to the House which makes provision for certain costs and he does not make any comment on what those costs will be related to if the miners' strike continues. As I said to the Secretary of State for Employment today, it is the height of irresponsibility for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and not to comment on it.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said that he would want to be on the Committee. After some of his comments, I wonder whether he will be. It would be very interesting

if he were. Perhaps the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) wants to be on the Committee. He is very much out of date, more so than when he used to sit on the Opposition benches. All his arguments today lead one to suppose that he must say the most outrageous things he can say. But I hope that he will be on the Committee, because we should welcome him.

Mr. Emery: The Committee stage is to be on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Eadie: There will be a Committee.
I also felt—and here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer)—that the proposition that we should have a third type of nuclear power station is something that we shall have to debate very carefully. We have already had two types and £2,000 million has been spent on them. Therefore when talking about finance, we are entitled to know what progress is being made. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South was on the ball when he said that it was time we had a debate about electricity and nuclear power.
The Minister did another disservice to the House. There was a leak in the Press that the Government had been discussing an energy policy. It is wrong for them to come to the House and talk about any form of energy and not give us the advantage of the Cabinet's knowledge of the future rôle of coal, oil and nuclear power in the production of energy. We are entitled to this knowledge. It should not be leaked out to the newspapers. When looking at the question of finance involved in the Bill we should look at it objectively, asking whether we are doing the right sums. From that viewpoint the Government have done a very great disservice.
What effect will the £25 million about which we are talking have upon employment? Will the Under-Secretary say how many jobs that will create and when they will be created? How many jobs will it mean for Scotland?
The Government have a responsibility to answer my specific points: what will happen to the people because of the power cuts, will the Government settle the miners' strike and how many new jobs will be provided by the Bill?

Mr. James Sillars: I shall make only two points, although there are many things that I should like to say, especially to the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office and to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). The 6,000 miners in my constituency who are on strike will not be impressed by the hon. Member's contribution to the mining conflict.

Mr. Emery: It happens to be right.

Mr. Sillars: Indeed, the vindictive manner in which he uttered his words will make the men stronger than ever in their determination to win what is no more than a fair take-home wage. The hon. Member alleges that the miners are trying to hold the country to ransom. But the general public, through the agency of the Government—different Governments of different complexions—has used and abused the mining communities for a number of years. The mining communities have supplied cheap energy to this country. That means that they have supplied cheap labour for far too long. The hon. Member for Honiton and the Ministers responsible should understand the facts of life. For the mining communities, the only thing that will settle this strike is cash on the nail above the last offer of the National Coal Board.
I hope the Minister for Industry does not think that he is dealing with the postman on this occasion. Psychologically, in mental tuning and in organisational ability the miners are far superior to any other group of organised workers. They have a capacity for survival and will survive.
I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday what the United Kingdom growth rate would require to be to give full employment north of the Border. He dodged that question. Last night the Minister for Industry said that we can look forward to a growth rate of 4 to 5 per cent. for a number of years. A week ago on Monday the Prime Minister said that a disturbing phenomenon in unemployment terms is that we now have a 5½ per cent. rate of productivity. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Development answer my question? I am not an economist; I do not know whether he is, but he is backed by a bigger staff than I am. Am I right in

thinking that with a rate of productivity of around 5½ per cent., which might accelerate in future, a growth rate of 5 per cent. no longer has the impact in terms of creation of job opportunity that it would have had in the mid-1950s and the mid-1960s? The Minister should be able to answer that question in a detailed manner. If he is not able to answer it, it will mean that the Government are stumbling around in the dark for a solution to unemployment.
This is a matter of extreme importance to the Conservative Party and to the unity of the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary of State for Development well knows that his party north of the Border had a separate manifesto. The Conservative Party has ignored the views of the Scottish people since 1970 and has implemented a ruthless policy. That situation is latent with danger for anyone who wants to keep the United Kingdom united.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I am pleased that so many back benchers, including myself, have been able to be called. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) said. The most remarkable thing about the debate is that there has been no mention of the miners' strike and its possible effect on the electricity industry, no mention of the possibility of power cuts flowing from the miners' strike and no mention of the situation in the electricity industry.
Clause 2 of the Bill gives a subsidy—that is what it is, no matter what we call it—of £25 million for bringing forward uneconomic capital projects. The mining industry is paying more interest content per ton than it did prior to the capital reconstruction of 1965. This has an effect on the wages problem and such a sum would help here. The coal industry is a regional employment industry. Apart from Nottingham, it operates in regions of heavy unemployment. No figure has been given of the number of jobs which will be created by these subsidised advanced capital programmes. We can hazard a guess that there will be very few indeed and that the workers who will be employed will be people in the construction industry who traditionally move from place to place.
We have the miners on strike, and I want to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said, that if anything would make the miners more solid in their attitude towards the strike it would be to hold over them the threat that they will probably suffer more than anyone else from power cuts. I can tell the Minister now that they are rock solid. I spoke to them on Sunday. We went to power stations where they are picketing. They are rock solid. It is no good the Minister's displaying what I consider to be an Olympian detachment. The miners are very much involved.
The position is this. When in the past in this House we have debated the electricity industry and the coal industry I, along with my hon. Friends from mining constituencies, have said that the problem facing the industry was that it did not know how many coal-fired stations were to be built. We knew that there would be phasing-out. I remember asking the then Minister, now the Chairman of British Rail. Dick Marsh, whether he could tell us, when we were talking about long-term capital projects, how many boilers in which coal could be burned would remain in future years. This was a very big problem and people were concerned about it. Drax was the last to be planned. He could not tell us; we got the usual Ministerial answers.
If the Minister does not make some move in the miners' strike, a move for cash in the pocket—for the miners have had enough flannel—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I do not think the hon. Member should go too much into the question of the strike. Time is short, and I am sure he will want to keep to the Bill.

Mr. McGuire: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but no matter how many boilers there are, no coal will be produced, such is miners' attitude, because they could not care less, unless there is a respectable offer. Otherwise they will not settle. It is no good the Minister's talking of subsidies, which will give only a few jobs, if we cannot do something positive to bring the miners back to work. This Bill is only tinkering about with ideas which

will give very little work when the Minister should be doing something practical which would help the country, help the coal industry and help the electricity industry.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful for these two or three minutes at the end of the debate to put two specific points. Before doing so I should like to deal with a remark made by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and with the implications of that remark that the postal workers a year ago today held the nation to ransom. At this time a year ago I was not a Member of the House. I was a postal worker involved in the strike, and I should be failing in my duty to my colleagues if I did not refute the implications of the hon. Member's remark. It is totally dishonest to make such a remark.
Now to address myself to the subject of the debate this evening, I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland two specific questions. In terms of the £25 million capital programme which is to be advanced to assist to solve the unemployment problem, I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) in asking how many jobs this will create in Scotland. Secondly, what specific projects in Scotland are in mind in the provision of the £25 million?
Finally, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what part he sees the oil industry playing in the future power structure of this country. My constituency is the centre of the oil industry in Scotland, and I am most concerned to know, for instance, whether there have been any discussions in relation to the pricing of oil, and the amount to be charged by the oil companies for oil to the electricity boards. I should be interested to know what discussions have been held, what projects are being brought forward, and what part the oil industry is to play in the future energy programme of this country.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: I want first to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and to tell the Minister that hon. Members on both


sides believe that the practice of deliberately sending over-estimated electricity bills is utterly unacceptable, morally dishonest and insensitive to the feelings not simply of elderly people but of other people on low incomes who can get very worried when they receive a bill with which they cannot cope. The Minister should use his powers in this respect. He can give a direction if necessary, though I am sure he would not need to do so. He appoints and he has the power of dismissal, and the industry is aware of that. Hon. Members on bath sides would welcome it if it were made clear tonight that the practice will not be tolerated in future.
It is normal in such a debate as this to try to tell euphoric tales of achievement, but it is a singularly mixed tale we tell of the electricity industry. It has a record of productivity success despite a peculiar record of technological adversity. On the adverse side, despite all the extra capacity provided during the past five years, it has been suggested that the actual megawatt capacity available as opposed to that theoretically available is no greater than it was five years before. I understand that during last winter less than half the new capacity constructed during that five years was available for use. In case anyone thinks that this is a political point, I should add that though the money may have been spent during our period in government the equipment involved was ordered when the Minister's party was in office.
The industry seems to have run into a series of peculiar technological difficulties—the Babcock and Wilcox Boiler hairline fractures, the failure of 500 megawatt units and then the corrosion of the Magnox system.
On the credit side, it is remarkable what has been achieved in the face of that adversity. Investment during the past decade has topped the £5,000 million mark and over half has been paid for by the industry. Yet despite this heavy self-investment programme, prices in the electricity industry during that decade rose at only half the rate at which the cost of living generally rose. In that sense the electricity industry was one of the factors helping to hold down the cost of living rather than pushing it rapidly ahead.
Despite the technological failures, the rate of increase in productivity has been striking. If we take 1960 as 100, we find that by 1970 the labour cost per unit in the industry had fallen to 82 whereas in industry generally it had risen to 150. That startling rate of increase in productivity should be borne in mind when the current pay claim is considered. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides hope that industrial action will not prove to be necessary in achieving a settlement. If, however, such action is taken it is worth reminding the public, in view of some of the headlines at the time of the last dispute, that it is the management that takes the decisions on which sectors are to lose power.
I fully accept that if there is industrial action some cuts may be necessary, but it is at the discretion of management where those cuts occur. This must be made clear to the public. For example, if a sector with a hospital in it is blacked out, the presence of the hospital is known to the board at the time the decision to cut out that sector is taken. At the Wilberforce Inquiry last year the South East Board's chief engineer made it clear under questioning that the workers had never refused to co-operate to keep hospitals supplied, even during the industrial action. He said that help had been "readily forthcoming".
I hope that we do not have to face a similar situation again, and therefore I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) in urging the Minister to act in pursuit of his duty to ensure adequate power supplies and not just sit back and allow the industrial situation to drift.
As regards the future, several of my hon. Friends have raised very fundamental questions. I know that in the time available to the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, it will not be possible for him to give too much detail. But it is important that the House should be told not only what the future mix of firing methods is to be but how the mix is to be arrived at. For example, what will be the impact of the actions of the oil-producing countries? What system is now being used for assessing fully the pollution costs of each of the alternative systems? Is this being looked at, and is it being quantified? Is


a social cost being assessed of the pollution created by the various systems? It may be, for example, that it would be better to accept the need for a coal-fired station rather than incur the possible hazards of nuclear wastes. We want to know this and to be told how it is arrived at.
The Bill is an astonishing document. It is yet another admission of defeat by the Government. Like the Mineral Exploration Bill, it recognises a fact which the Government foolishly failed to realise when they first took office, namely, that grants are the most appropriate form of stimulus. Secondly, the fact that Clause 2 exists at all indicates the depths of the Government's own assessment of the fall that has taken place in commercial confidence. Previously we were told that investment allowances would unleash an investment boom. It did not come. Then we were told that that was because the industry was waiting for the decision day about going into Europe and that when we said "Yes, we will go into Europe" there would be a bursting of the investment dam. If the investment dam has burst, where is it and why do we need Clause 2 to stimulate investment one to two years ahead? If there is that investment expansion which was allegedly to come as a result of the decision-making, this Measure could make its employment impact and expenditure impact at the wrong stage of the cycle.
The Government are trying to use the electricity industry and the other nationalised industries in the Keynesian manner, for pump priming. They are trying to prime the same investment pump that was not primed by investment allowances, by tax concessions and by their attempts to create a consumer boom. Now they intend to use the purchasing power of the nationalised industries. We on this side do not object to that, but if the Government are to bring forward £100 million in the nationalised sector, £60 million of which will come from the electricity industry, we want to be clear that this will not saddle the industry with unproductive overheads and, if it does, that the costs of those overheads are covered fully. Secondly, we want to make sure that it does not mean bringing forward decisions before the appropriate time for taking them. In the electricity

industry we are working near the frontier of current technological knowledge, and to rush decisions may mean rushing that much earlier into high-cost errors.
I am glad that the Government at last recognise the value of the publicly-owned sector, and I appreciate the panic that there must be in the Government for the Minister for Industry to have been converted to this realisation. If it makes sense to use the purchasing power of the nationalised industries, why not take it to its logical conclusion? Instead of stimulating order books for producers indirectly, why not allow the electricity industry to produce for itself? Why not encourage ancillary activities and allow it to diversify according to normal commercial criteria? Instead of hiving off, why not allow it to add on those sectors where private industry is at present failing to carry out adequate investment?
It would be helpful if tonight the nationalised industries could be assured that the Minister has substantially reformed his attitude towards hiving-off. We cannot expect the nationalised industries to update investment if at the time their investment becomes profitable it is hived-off to the private sector. The hon. Gentleman must give a guarantee that anything brought forward in the £100 million programme, not just the electricity programme, will not be subject to any hiving-off activities. If he wants to use the nationalised industries to remedy the failures of the private sector, he must give this guarantee and stop his mischievous doctrinaire methods.

9.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): In the very short time left I will do my best to answer as many of the points that have been raised as possible. If I fail to get through them all I hope that these matters can be covered in Committee or if necessary by letter. I will go as fast as I can and hope to get through as much as possible.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and others asked about fuel studies. There is no avoidable delay here, but the House will understand that it is important that decisions taken on such a fundamental matter should be absolutely right. Hon. Members will recognise that there have


been and continue to be changes in the criteria and the facts lying behind these studies. What particularly springs to mind is the dramatic change in oil prices. When my right hon. Friend has received the report he will be ready to make decisions as soon as possible.
Several hon. Members asked about the advancing of capital programmes and wanted details about that and the number of jobs which would be produced. Although the bringing forward of Ince B power station is the only spectacular, large item in this programme, there are a number of small and very small items which it has been possible to bring forward. I can assure Scottish Members that there are projects in Scotland being brought forward which we are discussing with the electricity boards. Some are small, some small to medium. It is not possible to say how many jobs will be provided but I can say that they will be provided in most cases well within the period of 18 months which the right hon. Member said was necessary. They will certainly begin to provide jobs soon.
It is not merely the workers who take part in the construction of these works, transmission lines and so on who are affected. There is also the ordering of equipment of various sorts which spins off into industry generally and is difficult to quantify. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's reservations on purist economic theory grounds, but I am glad that the Government have brought this work forward. I am certain that it will employ more people, that it is valuable and worth doing.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about available capacity. He and other hon. Members expressed the view that in spite of all the capital expenditure of recent years available capacity was not much different from what it was. Two figures which I have been able to discover since the right hon. Gentleman made the point may illustrate that his fears are not altogether well-founded. The available capacity at 31st December 1966 was 38,500 megawatts and at 31st December 1971 the figure was about 53,000 megawatts. That is a considerable increase and I think it justifies the capital expenditure made by both sides during that time.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that this is actually

available, rather than available in theory or nominally available?

Mr. Younger: I should have to look more deeply into the matter to answer that question with certainty. It is available capacity and the figures are those which I have been able to obtain quickly, because I thought the House would like to have them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will raise this point in Committee if he wishes to pursue it.
I was asked about the availability of coal stocks now. It is rather misleading to produce an average figure for coal stocks at power stations throughout the country and assume that one can draw firm conclusions about the possibility or otherwise of power cuts. It is obvious that in some areas there are considerable stocks for some weeks ahead, while in others there are less stocks. I therefore do not believe that it would be helpful for me to make generalisations and give average figures. I can say, however, that there is still a considerable number of weeks' stocks available in general and that naturally everything possible will be done to use them in the most useful way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) raised the important point of the tragic case of Mrs. Hemmingway. The whole House will agree that we are anxious to see that such a tragedy does not occur again and hon. Members will join me in expressing sorrow at the fact that it did happen.
I was somewhat surprised that my hon. Friend did not mention—perhaps he did not notice it in the papers—that the Minister for Industry had already taken action on this important matter. He had a meeting with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Electricity Council on 26th January to discuss the issue of the billing and collection procedures of the boards. These procedures are the responsibility of the boards, but my hon. Friend wanted to express personal concern over the recent reports and cases.
The chairman of the council told my hon. Friend that he and the boards shared his concern and that the industry was carrying out a full review of its billing and collection procedures. The implications of this review, which have been given added urgency by these unfortunate cases, will be discussed at a meeting


of the full Electricity Council on 9th February and at the council's meeting the following day with the chairmen of the electricity consultative councils. I assure my hon. Friend that the whole industry takes this problem most seriously.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has asked to be kept informed on further steps in this matter and he will make sure that these are kept in the forefront of the consideration that is given to this issue by those concerned. I hope that these remarks will allay some of the fears that have been expressed over this extremely distressing case.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) asked for examples of projects that had been brought forward under the capital improvement scheme. I cannot give him exhaustive lists at this stage but one example is the fact that only yesterday a transmission project at Heysham worth £1½ million was brought forward. I agree that this sort of project is rather more easy to bring forward quickly than some others. Nevertheless it is an example of the sort of project that we are hoping to bring forward under this scheme.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about various other stations such as the Isle of Grain. He pointed out that this was going ahead anyway and was not being brought forward under the emergency scheme. It is nevertheless going ahead. Sizewell B is a nuclear station which will be some time before going ahead, for we are anxious to ensure that we are making the right decision for the future, bearing in mind the balance of fuels to which I have referred. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no delay over the progress of this station.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central then asked about structural changes and wondered whether there would be a holdup in the production of structural changes in the industry as a whole. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said; that we do not have any proposals in hand just now for any major reorganisation of the electricity industry. I wish to make this clear because we do not want those concerned to feel that they

are operating in an atmosphere of uncertainty or that such an atmosphere is hanging over them.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about hiving off. I wish to make it clear that the consideration of whether, and to what extent, parts of the industry can be hived off is still very much under way and that no decisions have been made at this time. My hon. Friend will continue his consideration of this issue and in due course, if and when any decisions are made, he will make a statement to the House in the normal way.
I am sorry that I have not had time to answer all the questions that were asked and all the points that were made in the debate. I trust, however, this having been a valuable discussion on an important Bill, that hon. Members will give it a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Speed.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the statutory limits imposed on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Electricity Council and Electricity Boards, and to authorise contributions by the Secretary of State to expenditure intended to promote employment it is expedient to authorize—

(a) any increase in sums falling to be paid into or out of the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund under section 2 of the Electricity and Gas Act 1963, or any other enactment, attributable to provisions—

(i) increasing to £6,500 million the limit imposed by section 15(5) of the Electricity Act 1957 on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by electricity authorities in England and Wales,
(ii) increasing to £1,200 million the limit imposed by section 47(7) of the Electricity Act 1947 on the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of borrowings by electricity authorities in Scotland,
(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums not exceeding £25 million to be applied as contributions to expenses incurred by electricity authorities in connection with agreements entered into with the Secretary of State to promote employment. —[Sir J. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS

10.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): I beg to move,
That the Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) Order, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.
The order will empower my right hon. Friend to obtain temporary loans for the Redundancy Fund to a maximum of £20 million from 28th February. The purpose of the fund is to assist employers declaring redundancies by making rapid payments of 50 per cent. of the statutory redundancy payments to which their employees are entitled. It also makes guarantee payments to the employees of firms which, because of insolvency or for other reasons, cannot themselves pay.
The fund is normally financed by contributions from employers generally, which are collected from the National Insurance contribution and which at present are 6.3p for men and 2.9p for women. Under Section 35 of the Redundancy Payments Act there is provision for loans up to £8 million from the National Loans Fund. The total borrowing limit may be increased to a maximum of £20 million if both Houses approve orders authorising the additional amounts.
The state of the fund has fluctuated considerably since the introduction of the Redundancy Payments Scheme in December, 1965. Expenditure from the fund is necessarily linked with the incidence of redundancies, so the fund is especially vulnerable in times of rising unemployment, but expenditure is also affected by the ages, length of service and rates of pay of the workers who become redundant.
Through a combination of these various factors, a trend to deficit appeared in the latter part of 1966. It proved necessary then to increase the borrowing limit to £12 million from August, 1967, and, notwithstanding increases in the contribution, to £15 million from April, 1968, and to £20 million from August of that year. By March, 1969, the deficit was over £17 million. The Redundancy Rebates Act which came into operation in that month

decreased the rate of outgoings from the fund by reducing the employer's rebate to 50 per cent. of the payment due to the employee.
In 1969 and 1970 the number of redundant workers qualifying for payment remained relatively stable. These factors together enabled the loan to be fully repaid from the fund by the autumn of 1970. By the end of that year the fund carried a surplus of £2¾ milion. However, during 1971 redundancies increased sharply. The number of payments from the fund in that year, provisionally 369,000, was one-third greater than in the previous year. The average payment in 1971 exceeded the 1970 figure by 15 per cent., higher wage levels being a big and important contributory factor. As a result the surplus in the fund, which had been £3¼ million in the middle of April, began to disappear and by the middle of July the fund was once more in deficit. Since then the deficit has been increasing at various rates, apart from two short periods at the beginning of October and after Christmas.
At the end of the year the deficit had reached £4¾ million and at the end of last week it was £5,897,000. If it continues to rise at anything like the rate it has done in recent months, the £8 million limit which can be borrowed from the National Loans Fund will be reached within a matter of a month or so. It is not possible to predict the exact date when this position will be reached or how the fund will behave beyond this point. Much will depend on what happens to the levels of unemployment and earnings. There are encouraging signs of a reduction in the rate at which wage rates are increasing and we are confident that the massive measures we have taken to stimulate the economy will be increasingly successful, although they will take time to work their way through to employment.
But experience throughout the life of the fund has shown how difficult it is to forecast what its future position will be. There is no hard and fast link between outgoings from the fund and the level of unemployment. I have already referred to the fact that expenditure is affected by age, length of service, rates of pay and so on, of those who become redundant, and the causes of redundancy are complex. Even in periods when new


employment opportunities are being created, other jobs may disappear through changes in the pattern of demand or in the organisation of industry or methods of production. For example, the mechanisation of the handling of goods and materials has done away with many unskilled portering jobs but has created fresh opportunities for skilled labour, such as forklift truck driving.
Although our predecessors recognised the difficulty in the way of forecasting the future of the fund, this did not deter them from making various proposals for increasing the borrowing limits to figures short of £20 million, which they apparently hoped would be sufficient. As a result, no fewer than three borrowing orders had to be introduced within a period of 12 months. This does not seem to us to be a sensible precedent to follow. Given the difficulties of forecasting, we think the right thing to do is to increase the amount which the fund can borrow to the maximum figure of £20 million for the next two years. This does not mean that we think this figure will necessarily be reached or approached, but it will give us a reasonable degree of flexibility in administering the fund.
For the time being we intend to rely on the proposed increase in borrowing power. We shall, however, continue to keep a close watch on the state of the fund with a view to putting forward proposals, should they be necessary, to bring the income and expenditure of the fund into balance by adjusting contributions.
In conclusion, I should say something about the Redundancy Payments Scheme itself. As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been carrying out a review of the scheme. Before any decisions are reached about what changes, if any, should be made in the scheme, the Government consider it desirable that there should be full public discussion of the various issues involved. For this purpose my right hon. Friend proposes to issue a consultative document. This will examine how the scheme has operated in the light of experience, how far it has achieved its original objectives and whether changes are now required either in its objectives or in the means by which they are secured.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: From this side of the House tonight we shall not oppose the order, nor shall I level much criticism at it, although there are several questions which we must put to the Minister of State to which we shall expect answers before the House approves the order.
Before proceeding to those questions, may I say that I deeply deplore the failure of the Government to produce any account whatever of the Redundancy Fund since they took office. The most recently published account was that of November, 1970, relating to the financial year 1969–70. We have no statement either of the current state of the fund or of the income and expenditure for the year 1970–71 apart from that which we have heard briefly delivered orally this evening. This is a most regrettable state of affairs. It is tantamount to the hon. Gentleman coming to the House and seeking a blank cheque.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): No.

Mr. Walker: The Under-Secretary denies that, but it is a bit much when the Minister of State asks us to approve the loan of £20 million to meet the requirements of a fund, details of which are not laid before the House and we have not had an opportunity to study them. I deplore and most strongly condemn the circumstances which make this order necessary.
I agreed with the Minister of State when he said that there were a number of factors which influenced outgoings from the fund, such as age and pay levels and length of qualifying service, but there is not the slightest doubt that the overriding factor is the number of claims made on the fund, which means the number of persons made jobless. Another factor may be the demands made on the fund during periods of relatively stable employment. I am sure that no hon. Member can say that the order is not before us because of the sharp and almost unprecedented level of unemployment since the present Government took office.

Mr. David Mitchell: And before.

Mr. Walker: Does the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) wish to interrupt?

Mr. Mitchell: I was rather taken aback by what the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said and, therefore, I intervened from a sedentary position, for which I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I shall be able to reply to him when I seek to catch your eye later in the debate.

Mr. Walker: That was a quick ride away. I await with interest the observations of the hon. Member if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not good enough for the Minister of State to try to suggest that the level of unemployment is not the significant factor operating here when during the lifetime of the previous Government, every time the then Minister brought a similar order before the House, his hon. Friends made precisely the same charge as I am levelling now. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with this volte-face.
For example, on 23rd July, 1968, when we had a similar order before the House—I readily acknowledge that—the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) said:
The very fact that the total level of unemployment is rising means almost certainly that the numbers who are making claims upon the fund will rise; so there must be some link somewhere. I should be surprised if the high and, indeed, rising level of unemployment was not having a significant impact on the present state of the fund. One thing that they both have in common is that the accuracy of the forecasts by right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been miserably inadequate. I do not want to stray out of order, but forecasts have been made about the state of the fund and about the level of unemployment. Both have been proved wrong. I believe that there is a link between the two.
The present Secretary of State for Employment, in winding up that debate for the Opposition, said:
The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the suggestion that the increases in redundancy payments have nothing to do with the unemployment figure. This must have something to do with it because, by definition—although, of course, the linkage is indirect—there must be some linkage between rising unemployment and, therefore, people losing their jobs, and the payments from this fund." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1968; Vol. 769, c. 363–4, 395–6.]
Contrasted with the present level of unemployment which has risen as it has

during the last 18 months, the level of employment at the time of that debate was relatively static. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was speaking in an entirely different situation from the present dramatically changed situation. To try to pretend that the arguments then used by the Conservatives have no relevance today is a little too much to stand.
The Minister of State went into some of the historical background of the fund. Every time the accounts of the fund have been discussed there has been ready acknowledgment of the difficulty of forecasting. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's readiness to refer to the difficulties when we remember that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer some eight months or so ago was prophesying that his measures would take approximately two months to work through the economy and to start to have an effect on the level of unemployment. We all know that month by month there has been yet another dramatic increase in the unemployment figures until we now have the catastrophic level of more than 1 million unemployed.
I acknowledge the difficulty of forecasting, but surely experience over a period of time must provide some kind of yardstick. The pioneering years of the scheme which led to substantial revisions in 1968 and 1969 in respect of both contributions and rebates must have taught us something. In those days unemployment was running higher than the pattern in preceding years. I acknowledge that it was higher than when the original contribution and rebate level were established. But the adjustment that followed in 1968–69 seemed then to be certain to put the fund into substantial and continuing surplus for at least some years, even though we felt that the level of unemployment which then persisted was too high.
It is important to point out that a Written Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) in col. 85 on 17th January, 1972, may be rather misleading, although I am sure not intentionally so. The answer then given by the Under-Secretary was that for the year 1970 there was a surplus in the fund of £2,754,000. I think that was the figure given by the Minister of State in his


speech this evening, but the statement of account of the fund for the year ending 31st March, 1970, shows an excess of income over expenditure of about £14·1 million. It may be that this apparent discrepancy arises from the use of different accounting periods being based on the usual financial year whereas the Under-Secretary's reply may well have related to the calendar year. The answer does not make the position clear.
We have not been able to check the figures because, as I said earlier, the latest accounts have not been published and we are entirely dependent on the figures which were given a little earlier by the Minister. I should like the hon. Gentleman to qualify the situation. If he has adopted different periods for accounting purposes, perhaps in future he will feel it advisable to harmonise the accounting periods used by the political and accounting sections of the Department so that the answers to Questions are not, as in this case, completely devoid of meaning.
I should like the Minister to shed a little light on the reference to the deficit for 1968 in the answer to which I have referred. We ought to know the precise period over which that deficit was incurred. Was it a deficit for that particular financial year or a cumulative deficit which carried forward the deficit from the previous year or years? Before approving the order, the House is entitled to have a clear picture of the administration and accounts of the fund placed before it. Despite the Questions which I have put to the Department, and having scrutinised such accounts as are available and listened to the hon. Gentleman tonight, such a picture seems as elusive as the pursuit of the Holy Grail.

Mr. Bryan: Nonsense.

Mr. Walker: The Minister says "Nonsense". I hope that later he will give me the clear picture which I am seeking. I shall readily acknowledge my error if he is right.
By the absence of statements of account for the last financial year the Minister is offering the House a pig in a poke. Not only is there the difficulty of reconciling the Minister's answers to Written Questions on such accounts as have been published, but there are irreconcilable in-

compatibilities between the answers given by the Minister over a very short period.
On 17th January, in answer to a Written Question, the Minister gave a table showing the numbers of persons who had received payments under the scheme each year since its inception. Yesterday, in answer to a further Written Question, he gave me a table of payments made each year to men and women. For the years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 the number of persons receiving payments was substantially in excess of the number of men and women combined. Presumably the difference between these figures was accounted for by persons under the age of 21 who, by definition, are excluded from the tables for men and women but are still eligible for redundancy payments if they qualify.
For the period from 6th December, 1965, to 31st December, 1966, we see the very opposite. The number of men and women combined is more than 1,500 in excess of the number of persons receiving payments. Will the Minister tell me who these non-persons were? There may have been an error. If so, it calls into question the reliability of the figures with which we have been presented.
Again, contrary to the pattern which I described in the four years 1967 to 1970, the number of men and women who qualified for payments in 1971 exceeded by nearly 4,000 the number of persons given in the earlier reply of 17th January which the Minister of State has repeated tonight. But again tonight, as then, the hon. Gentleman said that the figure was provisional.
The important point about this matter is that if the pattern of those previous years persists, a more realistic figure for the number of claimants during 1971 is not 369,000, which the Minister gave tonight, or the larger figure of 372,725 being the number of men and women together, which was given in the hon. Gentleman's Written Answer yesterday, but probably about 380,000, which is by far the highest number of people receiving redundancy payments in a year since the scheme started. It is a staggering increase on the preceding year and a 60 per cent. increase over the average for the duration of the scheme under the Labour Government.
This is a very sad and sorry indicator of the grief, misery and hardship that is being endured throughout the land as a result of the unemployment which stems directly from the Government's policies.

Mr. David Mitchell: Shame.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman says "shame". He ought to talk to the 10 per cent. of the male workers in my constituency who are looking for jobs but cannot find them. He should talk to some of the 1 million-plus who are unemployed about whether they are suffering grief, misery and hardship and whether they believe, as I do and as all our people believe, that it is the direct consequence of policies pursued by the Government. It is the Government's failure to rectify the causes of unemployment which is directly responsible for this misery and suffering. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman or anyone on his side of the House to say "Shame" when they are presented with what are the hard, stark facts.

Mr. Robert Redmond: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government have set out to create unemployment or that we on this side of the House are any less concerned than he is about the unemployment figures? The figures are not the result of the present Government's policies; they are rooted in the credit squeeze which began in July, 1966.

Mr. Walker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for the time when we left office and the trend of the figures since 1966.

Mr. Redmond: Double.

Mr. Walker: If the figures were plotted on a graph, the hon. Gentleman would see a remarkable and accentuatingly sharp upsurge in a curve resulting in the disastrously high level of today. I wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been when we have debated unemployment in the past few weeks, when it has been made clear beyond doubt—

Mr. Redmond: I have been here.

Mr. Walker: —that every reputable economist, every newspaper commentator and everyone on this side of the House believes that the causes of unemployment are the policies pursued by the Govern-

ment. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] I can only tell hon. Gentlemen on the Government side that they are in a tiny minority and they ought to try to sell their argument to the unemployed. The reasons have been pointed out and I should be only too happy to reiterate them: the withdrawal of investment grants, the lame duck philosophy pursued by the Government, which has completely destroyed business confidence—

Mr. Redmond: Have a go on S.E.T., too.

Mr. Walker: —and the cuts in public expenditure. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) thinks that this is funny, but I have never thought that unemployment was a laughing matter.
It may well be that redundancy payments and wage-related unemployment benefits have cushioned people who lose their jobs against the kind of hardship I saw and experienced at first hand in the 1930s, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the loss of a job is still the most grievous misfortune that can befall a working man and his family. Not only is financial hardship involved; the destruction of a man's morale and the blow to his spirit are desperately important matters. It ill behoves any hon. Member either to laugh at this or to treat the unemployed as a political football. When I say that I believe that the policies pursued by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have caused this unemployment, I believe that to be so. I also indict them for their failure to have the necessary policies to put the economy back in a direction in which unemployment would be reduced.
I have referred to investment grants and the loss of business confidence. I was also referring to the cuts in public expenditure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to realise that for every £1 of Government expenditure that is cut, £1 is taken out of someone's wage packet. If one chops off sufficient pounds and if one chops off sufficient wage packets, one is chopping jobs. The man who loses his job does not have enough money to buy goods at the shop—

Mr. Bryan: Oh, no—

Mr. Walker: The Minister of State may not like it but I was led into this


argument by his hon. Friends who sought to repudiate my argument. By cutting expenditure we cut the jobs or people whose wages and salaries are represented by public expenditure.
I pointed out to the Secretary of State as long ago as July that to bring about a short-term reduction in unemployment he should embark on a massive programme of public works, encourage local authorities and nationalised industries to bring forward their spending programmes and encourage nationalised industries and Government Departments to bring forward their capital programmes. Belatedly and in small measure the Government are doing this, months after it was urged upon them.
It has been repeatedly argued on the Government side of the House that one factor leading to unemployment is the worsening of our competitive position because of increasing labour costs brought about by inflationary wage and salary settlements. I am an unrepentant believer in the need for a prices and incomes policy, but certainly not of the kind practised by the present Government and not necessarily of the kind practised by the Labour Government. We made mistakes, and I hope we shall learn from them. We grappled with the problem, but every time we tried to do something we were opposed almost without exception by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
If the Government want to put increased purchasing power into the economy without adding to wage and salary costs, let them give increases to those in greatest need who, because they are not in employment, would not add to wage and salary costs—the retirement pensioners and the chronic sick and disabled—instead of giving them supplementary benefit. Those people would spend every penny of it, unlike those who are in receipt of the surtax giveaways which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced last year. That would have a direct effect on purchasing power.
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was compelled to pursue that argument by the interventions, sometimes from a sedentary position, of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Bryan: Possibly also because of the lack of support from the hon. Gentleman's side of the House.

Mr. Walker: I am not sure what that remark is intended to mean. My hon. Friends probably realise that I do not need support when I take on the hon. Gentlemen and his hon. Friends.
To return to the issue before us, the Minister said that there was to be yet another consultative document from his Department on the future of the scheme. That answers the widespread Press speculation that the Government are contemplating changes in the scheme. Because of repeated allegations made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they occupied the Opposition benches, the Labour Government instituted a survey of the scheme. That survey was published in November, 1971. The Times pinpointed the essential features of the report on it on 17th November in a review of the Survey of the Effects of the Redundancy Payments Act, carried out for the Department of Employment and published by the Stationery Office.
The Times said:
The basic findings of the survey are that the Act has had a beneficial effect on industrial relations and has broadly achieved its objectives. It has led to increased flexibility and mobility of labour … On a social level it has more or less correctly related payments to hardships …The report finds that the criteria used to determine the size of the lump sum payment are generally appropriate….The report appears to vindicate the philosophy behind the Act.
While the scheme is not faultless, and there are anomalies that need to be rectified, it is wrong to look at the scheme itself for the difficulties that the fund is in and which give rise to the need for the order. Perhaps we should examine the fund's in-built tendency towards deficit, arising from contributions and payments being based on different principles. But neither that nor the need for a consultative document has anything to do with the need for the order. That arises entirely from the inept and maladroit policies that have produced over 1 million unemployed.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. John Page: When the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) started his speech I hoped that we should have a game of Parliamentary ping-pong tonight, but he


was induced by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) to go in for rougher fighting, which is not appreciated in the House at present. We always admire the hon. Gentleman's speeches, because of the steadfastness with which he has always supported his right hon. Friends through thick and thin.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston-upon-Hull, West): That is loyalty.

Mr. Page: I will not be controversial and be led on by the hon. Gentleman to discuss the loyalty of Labour Members towards their former Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity at certain times during the "In Place of Strife" debate.
The hon. Member for Doncaster tried to pull the legs of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. He said that they were adopting a different posture tonight from that which they had adopted on previous occasions. Having read with enormous entertainment, interest and admiration my own speeches on the two similar orders under the previous Government, I am happy to say that I shall be quite prepared to read them out from this side in the same way as I did then but with a difference, to which I shall come shortly.
There have been three increases in the employers' contributions to the Redundancy Fund during the past six years. In 1969–70 the total figure was £51 million. I wonder what it is today. Perhaps it is £60 million; it might be more. The hon. Gentleman's chiding of the Government for not producing figures earlier comes ill from a former Under-Secretary at the Department concerned. He must have known when he left office that the figures would not be available until November of last year, in the traditional way in which the figures are produced. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should complain at the beginning of February of the following year about the slowness with which the figures are produced.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has said that I am complaining because figures which are normally produced in November are not available at the beginning of February of the following year. I think that that is a just cause for complaint.

Mr. Page: I shall not go on with this argument. But it must have been clear to the hon. Gentleman when he was in office that the figures would not be produced before a certain date, and I do not see that he has grounds for complaining that they have not been produced in accordance with the schedule to which his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was committed at the time.
1 am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not quote from my last speech on this subject when I said that the industrial milch cow might be becoming a bit dry because of the constant milking by the icy-fingered milkmaid from St. James's Square. We now have a milkman, but the fingers are just as icy and industry has as much cause to complain now about the amount being taken from it for employers' contributions to the Redundancy Fund as it had before.
The welcome difference in the speech from the Treasury Bench tonight, in stark contradistinction to that which we heard when the previous Administration were in office, is that my hon. Friend has offered the country the hone of a complete restructuring of the Redundancy Payments Scheme.
The hon. Member for Doncaster said jeeringly that there would be another consultative document. The new system of producing consultative documents in the case of value-added tax, training, and the Code of Industrial Practice has shown how extremely valuable these documents are. Had there been a consultative document on S.E.T. instead of an absurd bulldozer procedure, many of the idiocies which occurred could never have happened. I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends not only for suggesting consultation but for suggesting genuine consultation.
I feel that the order is inevitable, but we look forward with some avidity, keeping my hon. Friend on the graticules of our binoculars, to seeing the new scheme produced within a reasonable time.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: This is a remarkable occasion. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said that unemployment was a desperately important matter. I should not have drawn


that conclusion from looking at the empty benches on his side of the House. Not one Opposition Member has felt that a discussion of the operation of the Redundancy Payments Act warrants his being present to support the lonely figure of the hon. Member for Doncaster.
Twice during the past seven days the Opposition have debated unemployment and attempted to censure the Government. When it comes to making party points the benches opposite are full but when there is an opportunity to come forward with constructive suggestions on a matter bearing on assisting affected persons no one other than the Opposition Front Bench spokesman who has been detailed to speak thinks it worth while to attend. I hope that this is borne in mind when some of the hollow phrases echo from those benches in future.
The Redundancy Payments Act has been an effective Measure even though it is somewhat crude and rough. It is a perfect example of commonsense and general sentiment triumphing over the finer points of logic. It is also a fine example of a Government, and I give full credit to the party opposite for this, setting a trend, pointing a path, and the theme being taken up by industry, then refined, developed and shaped in the light of experience. My hon. Friend the Minister says that he will be issuing a consultative document. I hope that the Government will look at what industry has done to adjust and refine the protection of the redundancy payment provisions.
Firms combine provision for age and length of service. The hon. Member for Doncaster said he thought the balance was right but I have never thought this and I do not feel it today. More emphasis should be placed on the difficulties of redundancy at a later age and if necessary, to achieve the right balance, there should be less emphasis on compensation for those made redundant in the prime of life when they have the best prospects of obtaining new employment. Many firms have introduced a special age supplement in addition to the statutory protection for those becoming redundant at or about the age of 60. I hope that the Government will look first at the possibility of being more generous in the provisions for those who, while they may

obtain further employment, are unlikely to be able to obtain it in occupations where they can sustain the level of earnings they had in firms where they had many years of service.
I turn now to the rebate. The last Government placed enough impositions on industry and when they relieved the industry generally of the need to increase the redundancy levy this did not perhaps attract a great deal of comment. The thinking behind it was suspect. There are two situations in which firms declare employees redundant. The first, and we have seen a great deal of this in the last 12 months, is where a firm is still vigorous and prospering but is in the middle of a restructuring operation involving the closure of out-of-date plant or plant no longer situated in the most economic place for future operation. Those firms probably account for a substantial proportion of the redundancy payments but other firms declare employees redundant because they are facing a difficult time and reduced demand. I hope that if there are to be enhanced redundancy terms the payment will not fall on the firms directly concerned but will be met entirely from the general fund, because there is a case for looking with some suspicion at a reduction in rebate.
I mention this for another reason. We are constantly searching for policies to assist the regions. A great deal of redundancy has taken place in the regions in the older industries which face substantial problems of employment and renewal. If the redundancy payments were carried generally by industry, that would have two effects. It would mean a modest measure of help to the regions and would encourage firms to make more generous provision in redundancy cases and would encourage them to an extent which should not be under-estimated.
One final point. The £40 maximum for payments taken into account in applying the formula has remained unchanged since the inception of the scheme. Either it was too high then or is too low now. I have not looked up the figures but I suspect that average industrial earnings over this period have increased by one-half. The maximum when the Act was introduced was probably about double the average industrial earnings. It is no more than 33⅓ per cent. above average


earnings today. There must be a case for looking at this figure.
I wish to refer briefly to the more general strictures of the hon. Member for Doncaster concerning the causes of unemployment. He made some indirect suggestions. May I suggest that at the conclusion of the debate he beats his solitary retreat from the Chamber and looks at a letter in The Times today by Professor Nicholas Kaldor, who says that there is no need to look for mysterious reasons why suddenly unemployment has grown. Professor Kaldor says that this is due to the absence of demand which is responsible for the unemployment levels of today.
We do not have to look far for that absence of demand. It is attributable to two factors. First, it is the direct responsibility of the previous Government, which increased taxation to such a high peace-time level-taxation which the present Government have largely removed. Secondly, it was the explosion of industrial costs which have pushed up prices, engineered by the Labour Government in the mistaken belief that it would lead them to win the General Election. If any hon. Member wishes to learn the lesson in front of him, it is that overtaxation and cost inflation are the prime contributors to unemployment.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I listened with considerable care to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), who has been an assiduous attender at debates on this subject and who is now in the unhappy position of finding himself lacking the support he might reasonably have expected from the benches behind him. We join with him in his sense of difficulty in the position in which he finds himself.
I listened with considerable pleasure to my hon. Friend the Minister of State in opening the debate, because before coming in for the debate I had some hesitation in supporting the Government in this matter in view of the things we said when we were in opposition and because of the Amendments we then moved to the legislation which is now in operation. I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to announce this evening that there has been some rethinking and that there will be a consultative

document, which no doubt it will be possible for the House to discuss.
Two things must be borne in mind. The first is that payments out of the fund are in no way related to the loss incurred by the individual who makes a claim. He may be able to cross the road to a better job and collect a payment at the same time. Equally he may suffer severe loss and still receive the same payment. This does not seem an equitable basis on which to proceed with a scheme like this.
I can give one example concerning a factory which was sold. A number of the employees were asked to travel 10 miles on a difficult journey to work at another factory owned by the same company. They agreed to do so. They continued to work for the same employer and did not have any call upon the fund. The rest of the employees remained working in the same job, in the same plant as before, but were now working for a new employer. They were therefore eligible for a payment. This is yet another example of the misuse of public money.
We are entitled to ask for an assessment of how the scheme could operate in terms of the best value for money. It has many aspects which the Government are quite right to re-examine. The sort of scheme that was outlined yesterday in which money will be spent on retraining is a far better investment for the country than some of the ways in which money will be spent out of the additional funds that we are asked to vote this evening.
I must respond to the invitation by the hon. Member for Doncaster when he spoke about unemployment and the 10 per cent. of his constituents who are unemployed. He suggested that it was a direct consequence of the Government's actions. I hope he will, to quote his own phrase, "look at the trends". I hope he will look at the direct relationship between the growth in the underlying productive potential of the country—something like 3 per cent. per annum —and the growth in demand which was achieved while his Government were in office. In 1968 there was a 5·6 per cent. growth in demand against a 3 per cent. increase in the underlying productive potential. In 1969 the growth in demand had sunk to 2·6 per cent. and in 1970 to


1 per cent., and in 1971 it has risen to 1·5 per cent.
There is a clear trend back to 1968, when the Labour Government were in office, of a far lower level of demand than the increase in the productive ability of industry. With figures of this sort it was inevitable that there should be a growing level of unemployment. It is a deep-seated problem and to use cheap catcalls about its being the responsibility of the Government is beneath the normal stature of debate of the hon. Member for Doncaster and I am surprised to hear him do it.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Bryan: With permission, I should like to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), the one Member of the Opposition who has shown enough concern about redundancy to stay up to the late hour of ten o'clock to discuss what he has presumed to tell us is an important point—and he no volunteer, he a conscript. He is not in a strong position to lecture hon. Members on this side who have bothered to come here—I am the only conscript on this side, but I would be a volunteer anyway—about whether we are concerned about unemployment or redundancy.

Mr. John Prescott: Then where was the Minister during the industrial relations debates?

Mr. Bryan: I realise that the hon. Member is present but, having seen the subject for the Adjournment debate, I know why he is here.
In answer to the hon. Member for Doncaster, I too thought, when I was preparing for this debate, that the accounts had been late in coming forward, so I looked up what had happened in the past. In 1966–67 they appeared on 27th February, the next year on 27th January and in 1968–69 on 4th February. When we came to office in 1969–70, they appeared on 24th November. This year we are somewhat behind but we are no later than the previous Government. I will see whether they can be produced earlier in the future.

Mr. Harold Walker: Could the Minister give the House an example of our

Asking approval of a further loan without having previously made the figures available to the House?

Mr. Bryan: I cannot produce that answer off the cuff.

Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look into that one.

Mr. Bryan: Certainly, but I do not feel in a weak position about this.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the deficits were cumulative or every year. He was referring to the Question of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). The figures in that answer, which are listed for the years 1966 to 1971, one after another, are the current deficits, on 31st December, of those respective years. The hon. Gentleman then showed discrepancies between figures. He seemed to be comparing provisional with final figures, but as there were so many I will go through them and put them on paper for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Walker: Is the Minister suggesting that the figures which I quoted for 1965–66 were provisional?

Mr. Bryan: No, I am not claiming that, but in toto that is the general explanation of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. But these are not vital points.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the general increase in these figures was due to unemployment. Unemployment has of course increased in every year since the scheme was first introduced in 1964. But, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) discovered in the past, there is no exact mathematical relationship between unemployment and the Redundancy Payments Scheme. That was what the hon. Member discovered in 1968, when he asked the House for what we are asking for tonight: borrowing powers up to £20 million.
With all the steps we have taken to try to bring down the unemployment figures, we are expecting a downturn in the coming months. Even then, however, it is sensible to say that one could have better unemployment figures and still have rising redundancy figures. As we have heard in the debates over the


past weeks, there are two kinds of unemployment—unemployment due to lack of demand and structural unemployment. There could be more activity, more employment and less short-time working together with, because of structural unemployment, an increase in actual redundancy at the time. Therefore, one's figure can go wrong—as well as policy, as the hon. Member's colleagues found when they were in power.
Apart from all this, machinery and other factors come into the redundancy picture, which, as we have said before, led to the hon. Member for Sparkbrook coming to the House three times in 12 months asking for further borrowing powers. Each time he was more confident than the last that it was all he would require, except for the third time when he was rather less confident. He explained that there were too many variables to get an accurate figure. We were told not only that earnings went up but that age, length of service, the numbers of unemployed and structural changes all had an effect. Obviously we have learned from the experience of the Labour Government, and we have decided to get within ourselves and to have some room for manoeuvre.
The hon. Gentleman rather sneered at the idea of a consultative document but we believe that the device or machinery, or whatever one calls it, of a consultative document is an extremely good one. We had a consultative document on the Code of Industrial Practice which we consider to be a great success, and that is what we shall say tomorrow. It produced a lot of advice and suggestions from all over the country and from all interests, except the party opposite, which did not care to take part. We believe that it is a great success.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must not say things which are not true. He says that my party chose not to take part in the consultative processes leading up to the Code of Industrial Practice, but my party was invited to do so only by a debate in this House, in which we obviously took a full part. If the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to look at my speech—it was a very good one—on that occasion, he would see that it was a catalogue of suggestions to his right hon. Friend, many of which, I am

delighted to say, are in the code of practice that his right hon. Friend has now adopted.

Mr. Bryan: I remember the hon. Gentleman's very long speech.

Mr. Walker: It was precisely the same length as the Minister's—exactly 30 minutes.

Mr. Bryan: I do not think this is important. On this point, however, the trade unions decided not to take part in the consultative process. That is without doubt true, and as a large number of hon. Members who are interested on the Opposition benches are trade unionists, I do not think the hon. Gentleman can say that they took a full part.
That is not what we are discussing, but to continue regarding the device of a consultative document we have today published a document on training which I believe will be a milestone in the history of training. We are shortly to get the consultative document on the Redundancy Payments Scheme and I believe that it will serve its purpose.
Without doubt, the Redundancy Payments Scheme has its virtues but equally without doubt it is not perfect and can be improved. We have had valuable suggestions from my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) and Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), but not from the Opposition benches.
When the consultative document comes out, it will open up the whole subject and we will have plenty to contribute, and I hope that there will be more than one hon. Member of the Opposition present to make a contribution.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ADTOURNNIENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

HULL DOCKS

11.9 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I begin this debate about the future of two docks in West Hull with a quote from the Hull Daily Mail of 21st January. It said:
It was a sombre day for North Humberside yesterday. The shock announcement that there are now more than 10,000 people out of work in the area was grim enough, but it was not the only blow to befall Hull and its immediate neighbours.
On 27th January the leader said:
What must puzzle many people is that this docks closure comes at a time when the country as a whole is being urged to prepare for entry into Europe. This, if it means anything at all, must be a tremendous challenge to those docks most likely to be affected by European imports and exports, of which Hull is preeminent.
On Thursday, 20th January, at 9.30 a.m., the Hull docks manager summoned some 80 gentlemen—port users, trade union officials and others—to see him and at 11 a.m. the bombshell burst upon them that the docks were expected to close by 31st March and there would be 200 redundancies. These would be among members of the N.U.R. —dock porters, loaders, shunters and others. The Hull Docks Board is having universal odium showered upon it all over the city. The situation calls into question the board's whole administration and management.
The able N.U.R. secretary, Mr. Tom Waddington, got in touch with me. The action taken by my colleagues and myself has been taken in consultation with the unions concerned, the N.U.R. and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. We have their full backing. I wish there had been the same sort of teamwork between the board and the unions as there has been between the National Coal Board and the N.U.M. over pit closures.
A leading Hull industrialist, Mr. Weekes, President of the Hull Association of Engineers, said:
To the people who build ships at Goole and have to fit engines at William Wright Dock, Hull, closure of the dock would be most unfair. There should be collective discussion and much more notice given of any intention to close the William Wright and Albert Docks.
The Hull Chamber of Commerce, in much the same strain, said it was

gravely concerned" about the planned closure. It explained its objections. 
We immediately got in touch with the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board, Sir Humphrey Browne, at Marylebone. He saw me and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The Minister said it was a matter for the board management. He added that he could not interfere with the board in anything it considered necessary to keep the docks viable. I do not accept this. I put down a Question to the Minister to which the answer was a monosyllabic "No". We were told by the chairman that the closing of two docks at some stage was inevitable since the modern Eastern docks had more than ample capacity. We got the usual bromides, for example that the closure was vital to the health of the port, and—another magnificent cliché—that no one a few years ago had contemplated the speed at which cargo handling methods would change.
To allay any fears in Hull, particularly in West Hull, about the fish dock, I am assured that the commercial docks administration is kept separate from the fish docks and that as far ahead as can be estimated there will be fish docks on both sides of the Humber.
We were told that the loss on the docks to be closed was £860,000 in 1970 and would be just over £1 million in the current year. To our dismay the chairman refused to give any more detail beyond stating that the closure of the Western docks would make economies of perhaps a £¼ million or £400,000. These docks represent £4 million in assets. It is scandalous that these modern, well-equipped docks should close on the west side of the city where there is easy access to the West and Yorkshire by means of the railway freight terminal and main highways. What puzzles union leaders, and of course Members of Parliament, is the nature of the financial and economic arguments which are advanced since we have been given no breakdown of the port's finances.
For example, what are the interest payments and total overheads? Do they amount to £1¼ million or £1½ million, as I have been told? What percentage is due to the East docks or the West docks? Without detailed figures any argument


or debate is completely phony, particularly as I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), who has allowed me to use his name, that Liverpool Members of Parliament are willingly given access to financial information by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
The docks board in Hull owns large areas of land. Why can it not sell some of the land to obtain money to pay off debts? In my constituency we have no land for building houses; we have to go to the east of the city to get land to house our people. A firm named Kinsey's has investigated the finances of the guildhall and the city. I wish that it could have a go at the docks and the Railways Board, which has a dead hand over Hull.
At a meeting of workers and port users, considerable criticism was voiced. The docks board set up a two-tier system whereby most things at the Humber Ports Association level are duplicated in the four Humber ports. The workers and port users criticised and charged the management with being completely ineffective in running Hull docks and for failure to secure traffic. The docks manager indicated that prices quoted to consumers for handling traffic at Hull were higher than anywhere else in the country except London.
The unions have found unusual allies at this time in that the industrialists and those who do business in the port have sent a telegram to the Prime Minister signed on their behalf by a former colleague. Mr. George Odey, a well known industrialist and a former Member of Parliament for Beverley. A storm of feeling has been aroused in the city. I ask the Minister to examine Hull's position again. He must surely know that future Humberside development is on the way if we are to enter the European Economic Community. Bearing in mind that his Government have given the go-ahead for the Humber bridge and for motorways linking with the M1, he must also bear in mind that there is a slump in world shipping. When we become more buoyant, as the Minister so often on behalf of his Government tells us we shall, we expect him to show this with reference to Hull. He must show this to maritime and commercial circles.
There is also the worsening of the further deadening impact on unemployment figures. In the light of this, I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of suspending interest payments on Government loans. In any event, I ask him to intervene with the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board and to delay the closure until a thorough inquiry is made into the administration of Humberside docks.
Feeling in the docks amongst the workers is high. I am speaking of some of the most responsible unions in the T.U.C., including the N.U.R. and the T.S.S.A., but it would not take much to spark off industrial action. We therefore-expect the Minister to make a positive gesture and give an indication of the sort of action that he feels it is possible for him to take.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The Conservative Government believe in efficiency and not in featherbedding lame ducks. They also believe in private enterprise. I think that the Government are right and tonight I am not asking for special help for the Hull docks, because I believe that they could and should be made to pay their way, but the present policy of the dock board is endangering many of the private enterprise firms which use the docks.
It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that about 10 years ago Hull was attracting trade from the London Docks because of London's continual strikes and inefficiency. I am sorry to say that since then owners have tended to avoid Hull because our docks have a bad reputation for labour relations. Futile one-day strikes may succeed in killing the Hull port, and these strikes have already in part been responsible for the decision to close two docks. I repeat that they will be responsible for killing the port if they go on.
But this is only one side of the story. There has also been inefficient management, and I will give three examples of what I believe illustrates this statement. It will be seen, therefore, that both sides have a responsibility for the possibly disastrous effects of the present policies on the Port of Hull, the third biggest port in the country.
First, I am informed that there are unused parts of the area of the docks the future of which we are debating, with derelict buildings and derelict railway sidings. I am told that offers have been made for these properties by local firms and that these have been rejected, probably owing to uncertainty about future planning. I believe that the loan charges already referred to could be offset by selling these properties, which could then be put to good use.
Second, I support what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said about the difficulty of obtaining financial information from the docks board. This difficulty is not conducive to good public relations or good relations with hon. Members of this House.
Third, there is the whole question of lack of consultation with the users of the port. As we have heard, the trade unions were not sufficiently consulted. The users were not consulted at all. This makes for the worst possible kind of public relations, especially when a decision to close the docks is announced without any consultation.
St. Andrew's is the fish dock which I know well as it used to be in my constituency before the redistribution. Here we see a good illustration of what I mean by inefficiency on the part of the docks board. Charges have risen, though this is perhaps not unusual. There has been very little modernisation of the fish docks. In fact, I am told that since 1954 only just over £500,000 has been spent on modernisation but that about £420,000 of that sum represents war damage repairs.
There has been very little future planning. The size of the lock gates determines the size of the trawlers that can use the dock, rather in the way that the size of the American fleet used to be determined by the ability of warships to go through the Panama Canal. The quayside is such that modern machinery cannot be used, because the quayside would fall in, and it is clear that there has been gross lack of planning and modernisation of these docks by the docks board. I am told that there has even been a threat to close these docks, but I have been glad to hear that this threat is null and void.

Mr. James Johnson: I want to make it clear, because this matter is bound to worry people and we do not want to make the people of West Hull scared, that what the hon. Gentleman is mentioning now is not a starter.

Mr. Wall: I am delighted to hear that. The hon. Gentleman is chairman of the Fisheries Committee on his side of the House and I am chairman on this side. Naturally we have personal interests in this matter. I am sure that if there were any foundation for the threat contained in the rumours which have been circulating, it could not have been carried out.
In the St. Andrew's dock the owners have offered to pay for a work study because they believed that the dock was inefficient and was losing money. This offer was turned down. Why? By allowing an impartial inquiry, the docks board could justify its increased charges. and demonstrate that it was being efficient.
I believe therefore that there is a case for saying that in the Hull docks as a whole there is inefficient management. It is clear that there are bad labour relations, and that there has been no consultation with port users or trade unions, that the Albert and William Wright docks constitute a major public utility and that there is grave local concern which cuts across party boundaries.
A telegram was sent to the Prime Minister, as the hon. Gentleman said, and I should like to quote the operative paragraph. It is signed by my constituency president, Mr. George Odey, a former Member of Parliament and prominent industrialist, and by my chairman, Mr. Robert Locking, a prominent solicitor in the area. They say:
We urge you in the strongest possible terms to order a public inquiry into the administrative and financial position of Hull Docks to ensure the future prosperity of Hull as a port for Europe.
This is the note on which I should like to end: the future prosperity. We have the possibility of the closing of these two docks hanging over our heads and no assurance that the efficiency and administration of the docks board will improve. This uncertainty may spread to other parts of the port. I therefore believe that there is a strong case for a public inquiry. I know that a Select Committee of this House is to visit Hull in the near


future and that the Minister may feel that he should wait until that visit has taken place, but a Select Committee takes a long time to make its report and I do not believe that there is much time. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us that there will be a public inquiry within the shortest possible time.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: I will take no more than two or three minutes, because the Under-Secretary obviously has to reply to this important debate. I shall have to curtail what I had hoped to say, so I will restrict myself to one or two points only.
The first point that we want to get clear from the debate is that it is not inevitable that the docks will have to close. If they do, it will be the result of the financial policy which is being forced upon them: namely, that they must make a profit. That is the policy which the Government have put out. The Minister and I have debated this point before. In order to make a profit the docks must cover the interest charges. The Hull docks have made profits but they have not been able to cover the huge interest charges of over £1 million on the £25 million which has been invested in the last decade or so.
This creates a problem for a port like Hull, because it means making higher charges and competing with some of the smaller ports which do not have to cover the charges for the great amount of investment which a new port requires. For example, it costs only 17½p to unload a ton of grain in one of the small unregistered ports down the Trent compared with 60p in Hull. This presents a challenge to the policy of financial obligations which are placed on the nationalised industries.
We cannot seem to get any detailed financial information about these individual docks. We have approached the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board but he has told us that we cannot have the information. The Under-Secretary should stand up for the rights of Members of Parliament and demand to have the information which we require about this industry. I am blocking a British Transport Docks Board Bill which is before this House and will continue to do so until we get the information.

The Minister should ensure that the information about the costs involved and the alleged savings is made available to Members of Parliament. I hope that he will get on to the chairman of the board and tell him that we need that information.
My last point concerns the traffic fall. The unemployment level in Hull is so high that the unions face situations, though on a smaller scale, like Clydebank, Plessey and Fisher-Bendix in Liverpool. There comes a point, particularly when Hull is dying the economic death of a thousand cuts, when workers will say, "To hell with it; we will not accept it", and will pass a resolution, like that passed by the N.U.R., saying that they will not co-operate with the increasing closure of docks. I understand that view and support it. That seems the only way to force any sense into a Government who dictate this kind of financial policy, which is dedicated to the exaltation of profit but means 1 million unemployed, 10,000 of whom are in Hull. The workers and the unions in Hull will not accept it, and we shall do all we can to resist it and any other possible closure.

11.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): In many ways this is a sad occasion. It is sad because the subject of the debate is the possible loss of jobs by some of the constituents of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), and because the two docks which are to be closed have meant a great deal to Hull. I have had a good deal of personal experience of those two docks.
The occasion is sad because in the 1950s and 1960s a good deal of public money was invested in the William Wright and Albert Docks in the hope that they would pay their way. But, alas, they have not done so, and the losses have continued to mount. It is sad, too, because of Hull's apparent failures to grasp the great opportunities that lie before it.
For me personally it is saddest of all because hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their speeches, have simply refused to recognise that the Port of Hull's salvation lies very largely in the hands of those who work there, whether in management or in the unions, and who have, alas, in too many cases, on both sides of the table, through


dispute and division, done themselves and the port no good.
Coming to the hon. Gentleman's speech, my first and most important point is that the decision to close the two docks is a matter for management. Parliament has set up the British Transport Docks Board as a statutory undertaking, and it is right that management should be left to the board. I emphasise that at the outset, because hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that the Government should intervene to prevent the closure of these docks. My right hon. Friend and I do not consider it right that we should intervene. Even if we did, we have no locus and no powers in law to do so. My right hon. Friend's powers under the Transport Acts—

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Under-Secretary saying that he has no powers whatever, even to ask the chairman of the board to delay any future closure?

Mr. Griffiths: We have no wish to intervene in the management's judgment of what is best for the port. We have no powers to tell the board how to run its business. I understand, too, that there are no powers in the local legislation affecting the Port of Hull that would have any bearing on such a question.
Warmhearted as always, the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the effect of the proposed closures on the men employed in these docks. I hope that he will accept that I am just as concerned as he is about present and future employment prospects, whether in Humberside, Bury St. Edmunds, or anywhere in the United Kingdom; nor is the British Transport Docks Board in any way lacking in recognition of the human problems involved. Indeed, before the main board in London reached its decision on Wednesday last, the matter had been very carefully considered by the local board in Hull, and the staff representatives were informed in advance of its proposals. No one has yet been given notice of termination of his employment, and, whilst it is true that about 200 docks board employees are likely to be affected by the decision, I understand that the board will do its utmost to deal with the redundancies, as far as possible, by voluntary severance arrangements, and that this will cover the port as a whole, so that all the redundancies need not—and, I sus-

pect, will not—be centred in these two particular docks.
The reasons for the closure are matters for management, but the board has been making increasingly heavy losses at Hull in the past seven years. In 1969 it lost £567,000; in 1970 it lost £830,000; and last year the losses are expected to have been about £900,000—not, as far as I am aware, £1 million. All this was in spite of efforts by the board to reduce costs and increase revenue. Therefore, the proposal to close these docks has not suddenly arisen. It results from a thorough review of the financial results of the facilities on the Humber as a whole, a review which has been going on for some years.
It is true that in the late 1950s and in the 1960s £3 million of further capital was invested in these two docks. In my view it is a great pity that that expression of confidence has not been justified in the events. The point has been reached at which the board has come to the conclusion that it is better to cut the mounting losses than to pursue further what now seems to the board to be the hopeless quest for adequate revenue on its past investment.
Hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who has intervened in the debate, have raised questions about the financial situation. I am bound to tell hon. Members opposite that there is annual publication of the accounts of the Hull docks in the accounts of the British Transport Docks Board.

Mr. Prescott: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I will not give way.

Mr. Prescott: But that is not sufficient information.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member must learn that when he leaves the Government spokesman with nine minutes to reply to an Adjournment debate, he will not get all the answers to his questions.

Mr. Prescott: Look deeper.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member would be wise to wait, and then he might listen and learn.
I was saying that the financial statement of the port is contained in the annual report of the docks board. The


new chairman of the board, Sir Humphrey Browne, is well aware of the problems of the industry as a whole and of the Port of Hull in particular and I am confident that he will reverse, if it is possible to do so, the disappointing trend that we have confronted.
I want to deal with some of the specific points that were raised concerning land. There may well be opportunities that need to be grasped and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice that it is most certainly the policy of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries that in all the nationalised industries for which my Department has some responsibility we should encourage the sale of as much land as possible at a commercial price, in part to help the housing problems to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West has referred and in part also to help the finances of the board.
Concerning the fish dock, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me, since this was not the main subject of the debate, simply to say that this is a rather special case. I am, however, glad that discussions are now under way between the management of the port and the British Trawlers Federation. I will keep my hon. Friend advised about all I learn on this subject.
I cannot leave this subject without saying that those who work in the Port of Hull, whether management or labour, have not helped themselves. There is the problem of surplus labour. This is a

very real problem. Within the Port of Hull a number of stevedoring firms have been driven out of business simply because they are not allowed, as the National Dock Labour Scheme now operates, to divest themselves of surplus labour.
It is equally the fact that the industrial troubles have made the port's financial situation very much worse. There has been a whole series of extremely damaging one-day stoppages arising from various disputes, and frequently these strikes have taken place without warning, doing unaccountable damage to the shippers and to foreign shippers in particular. In October, 1970, there were two one-day stoppages. In December that year and January, 1971, there were four separate one-day stoppages. In March and April last year there were other one-day stoppages—

Mr. Prescott: Why?

Mr. Griffiths: —and between May and July there were not fewer than 13 separate one-day stoppages in the Port of Hull. I am bound to say that this does not help to create a climate of confidence for the port's future.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.